Summary/critical response – working at mcdonald’s (book attached)


Major Disquisition #1—Summary/Critical Response

 

Purpose:

Most of us use momentous balbutiation strategies common,ordinary to effectively manner all of the advice we are conformably bombarded after a period.  This assignment allows you hold to examine themes of balbutiation and fitness rhetorically, as you accomplish use unanalogous strategies to transcribe your analysis and your sound calculateer-argument.

The Assignment:

This assignment accomplish enjoy two parts:

The Summary.

The Momentous Response.

 

 

The Summary

Summarize in 150-200 vote the season your pedagogue has selected from the assignment.  Content use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition passagemagnitude (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition magnitude).  In this analysis, you should recruitment the season’s deep sharp-ends, altogether and accurately, in your own vote.  If you experience yourself in a top in which the composer’s vote deficiencyed to be still n essd instantly (peradventure for recognition), you must create it disengaged that these vote are the composer’s by using passage marks ownly.  You accomplish not failure to still n ess anything balance one doom in extension, and you accomplish failure to expression yourself to no elevate than 2-3 trodden still n esss, if you use any at all.  Remember that the complete sharp-end of this intetranquillity of the assignment is for you to tranquillityate the composer’s sharp-ends objectively in your own vote.

In unconcealed, I apascertain you composition your primeval doom celebrity enjoy this:

           In "Working at McDonald's," Amitai Etzioni argues that...

This accomplish power as the topic announcement of your analysis, so this primeval doom accomplish deficiency to remove the deep sharp-end(s) of the season to furnish your discoverer an balanceall sight.

 

 

Critical Response

Write a 1 ½ to 2 page calculateer-topic to the season your pedagogue has selected from the assignment.  Content use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition passagemagnitude (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition magnitude).  Before you level rouse drafting, you accomplish failure to run on the conditions of your calculateer-argument.  Once you run on the conditions (or axioms) of your calculateer-argument, you’ll failure to approveness out how you can instituteation your sharp-ends—using logic, beyond indication—whatever is misappropriate.  Your calculateer-topic cannot be fixed on solely your theory environing the outcome.

 

What is a analysis?

A analysis is solely a recounting of the deep sharp-ends of an season.  But what should it veritably apprehend?  How is the analysis formatted?  The best way to imbibe how to transcribe a analysis is to discover and search someone else’s analysis. 

Before you discover the tranquillity of this Nursing Dissertation, content discover the incomplete essay entitled “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” from the premise of page 255 through page 257 in your 10th edition passagemagnitude (pages 275-276 in your 9th edition textbook).** After you’ve discover this essay, then content hold after a period the Nursing Dissertation.

A Pattern Summary

The forthcoming is an model of how one novice summarized the season “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.”  (Remember: "Sticks and Stones" is not the season that you accomplish be balbutiation and responding to.  However, this model does procure a cheerful model of how to guile summaries in unconcealed.)  As you discover this model, ask yourself what you mark environing the analysis—in conditions of resolve, rendezvous, character, construction and formatting.

Summary of  “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” 

In “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” Richard Estrada argues that sports teams should not be undisputed to hold using ethnic-fixed designates and mascots.  Estrada privileges that teams such as the Braves, Indians, Seminoles, and Redskins—no substance how orderly or popular—should fluctuate their team designates and mascots, which are dishonorefficient to Native Americans.  He elevate suggests that the stereotypes appertaining these mascots, such as “tomahawk chops and war chants,” dehumanize and uncombined out Native Americans, enhancement them asunder from the tranquillity of sodality.  “Nobody enjoys to be trivialized or robbed of his or her decency,” Estrada asserts, and yet allowing ethnic-fixed mascots enables—and level promotes—such trivialization.  What creates substances worse, according to Estrada, is that such mascots target one of our nation’s smallest politically mighty ethnic clumps.  He procures models of other approvely team designates fixed on other ethnic minorities (such as the “New York Jews”), which would never be tolerated in our sodality.  As a product, Estrada concludes that Native Americans should be treated after a period absolute rational decency, regular enjoy perfecloudness else.   178 Words

So what did you mark?  What does the analysis apprehend?  How is it formatted?

Perhaps primeval you markd that the novice transcriber’s theory of “Sticks and Stones and Sport Team Names” is not apprehendd.  Rather, the novice is opposed to solely remove the deep sharp-ends of Estrada’s primary season.  Remember:   Whether you enjoyd the season or didn’t enjoy it, whether you agreed after a period the composer or disagreed, your theory does not belong in the analysis.

Second, you may enjoy genuineized that the primeval doom is very relevant in the analysis.  The primeval doom must to three things disengagedly and concisely:  1.) Mention the designate of the primary season; 2.)  Identify the composer of the primary season; 3.) furnish a recognition of the balanceall privilege or sharp-end the composer was opposed to create.

Maybe plain you observed that the primary composer was belongred to in some way in perfect dooms. Richard Estrada argues, Estrada privileges, He elevate suggests, Estrada asserts, according to Estrada, He procures models, Estrada concludes—these are all calld “positive tags.”  Positive tags are surveyd to resoul the discoverer that these are Estrada’s themes (not yours), and thus furnish own merit wshort merit is due.  Mark how the novice transcriber in the model over has numerous his positive tags, using unanalogous ways to belong to the composer (Estrada and he), and using unanalogous verbs to expound what Estrada was communicating.  The novice transcriber to-boot numerous the reconsignment of the positive tag in distinct attributes.  (Often the positive tag comes at the rousening of the doom, but casually an positive tag accomplish fit into the intermediate or end of the doom.  You accomplish to-boot failure to apprehend an positive tag in each doom of your analysis, and you accomplish failure to deviate these belongences.

You may enjoy to-boot markd that the novice transcriber who is summarizing Estrada's labor has used trodden still n esss very locally.  Any duration he did use level a phrase of Estrada's vocable-for-word, he put it in passage marks to show this.  **NOTE:  Period in most disquisitions you would deficiency to use inpassage parenthetical citations after a period the composer's latest designate and page estimate such as (Estrada 280) any duration you summarized any themes or representative from your spring, these are not inevitefficient in a contained analysis such as this.  They accomplish be inevitefficient in forthcoming assignments such as the discovery disquisition.

Next, you may enjoy observed how the latest doom of the analysis veritably appears to cover things up and procure a recognition of quittance.  You accomplish failure the latest doom of your analysis to procure the discoverer after a period a recognition of quittance as well-mannered-mannered.

Finally, you probably markd the vocefficient calculate, apprehendd at the end of the analysis.  Sticking after a periodin 150-200 vote is relevant in the analysis, so I accomplish failure you to apprehend your vocefficient calculate.

But how do I get from short to there?

I apascertain you use the concepts sift-canvassed in your balbutiation from Condition 12 as a character of unintermittent manage to get you unconfused to transcribe your analysis. 

1.) Annotate.  Discover and re-discover the essay "Working at McDonald's," and engage still n esss.  Mark things in the passage that you cogitate are relevant, specially noting what appear to be the deep sharp-ends of the season.  Transcribe questions you enjoy in the margins, and still n ess attributes wshort you are established or skeptical.  (This accomplish to-boot aid you in the plain part when you’re opposed to get themes for your sound calculateer-argument.)

2.) Take Inventory.  Clump your still n esss in a way that creates recognition to you. 

3.) Outline.  This does not enjoy to be a ceremonious contour in any recognition of the message.  But it can be a cheerful theme to try to inventory or map the deep sharp-ends of the season, precedently you truly rouse drafting your analysis.

4.) Write your analysis, tranquillityating the season’s deep sharp-ends in your own vote.

 

A Pattern Critical Response

The forthcoming is an model of how one novice responded to the season “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.”  (Again, remember: "Sticks and Stones" is not the season that you accomplish be balbutiation and responding to.  However, this model does procure a cheerful model of how to guile the momentous calculateer-argument, in unconcealed.) 

As you discover this model, ask yourself what you mark environing the momentous calculateer-argument—in conditions of resolve, rendezvous, character, construction and formatting.

Sticks and Stones and Contradictions

   I institute Richard Estrada’s season, “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” pliant, and to-boot a bit confusing.  Estrada’s speech appears inspirited, exaggerated, and level adverse.  His indication is truly anecdotal, and as a product, we admit very few firm axioms to instituteation his privileges.  In importation, Estrada’s truth is undisengaged throughout the season. 

   To rouse after a period, Estrada uses numerous exaggerated and adverse phrases.  For occurrence, Estrada privileges that using ethic sports teams designates and mascots is “dehumanizing” to Native Americans (280).  To “dehumanize” is to hinder someone of rational qualities, yet Estrada never ascertains that this is truly what ethic sports designates truly do.  In certainty, he altogether confutes this opinion of “dehumanization” in the anterior doom, by sift-canvassing why these mascots were selected in the primeval attribute.  “The illustrious symbols of the Redskins or propaganda football’s Florida Seminoles or the Illinois Illini are mediumt to be sound and proud” (Estrada 280).  Noble.  Strong.  Proud.  These are all rational qualities; truly, they are qualities numerous inhabitants aspire to achieve.  So how can such symbols be dehumanizing?

   In importation, the designation “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” itself appears to confute Estrada’s privileges.  By invoking the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may tame my bones, but vote accomplish never trouble me,” Estrada appears to medium that mascots and team designates don’t substance at all.  I had to discover the season distinct durations precedently I finally grasped his intentions.  Estrada is opposed to be ironic.  Although his designation alludes to the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may tame my bones, but vote accomplish never trouble me,” Estrada is truly opposed to ascertain the opposite:  Vote can trouble us, and deeply.  Period most inhabitants are probably free after a period the primary children’s tingle, I don’t respect that most discoverers accomplish recognize that they should be balbutiation Estrada’s designation ironically.  This is especially penny when we cogitate Estrada’s contrived conference.  This stay was written for the Dallas Waking News, not for the classroom enhancement.  How numerous inhabitants veritably momentously discover their waking newspapers?  How numerous inhabitants examine such seasons thriftfully, rather than skimming, and discover them distinct durations?

   Next, Estrada’s failure of firm indication is problematic. Other than belongences to subject-matter teams, his indication is truly anecdotal and frequently rumor.  For model, balancehearing a senior’s discontent on the radio environing a largely not allied incident—a premise dress-up day—does brief to ascertain the genuine wounds of ethnic sports designates and mascots.  This story simply shows that one idiosyncratic was offended by an arbitrary falsification made by a few insensitive teachers.  What Estrada deficiencys to ascertain is genuine wound done:  Peradventure interviewing or surveying a clump of Native Americans to hearkenken their thoughts on this theme.  Peradventure citing a subjective or sociological examine that ascertains the latesting impacts of mascots in political product.  How does show these mascots like the way inhabitants of other races sight Native Americans?  How does show these mascots like the way Native Americans sight themselves?  Do most Native Americans impress offended by mascots such as the Braves and the Redskins?  These are all questions Estrada deficiencys to reply after a period elevate firm indication.

   Finally, Estrada’s truth and cannonade in this outcome are undisengaged throughout his season.  Is Estrada Native American?  He positively doesn’t enjoy to be to thrift environing this outcome, but either way, he should create it disengageder why he thrifts.  If Estrada is Native American, does he anticipate to express on aid of all Native Americans?  If Estrada is not Native American, how does he recognize any Native Americans are truly offended?  (Other than the senior who calld the radio post, of conduct.)  What Estrada cogitates environing this outcome is disengaged.  But what does he veritably know environing it?

   Precedently I discover this season, I already respectd that ethnic-fixed mascots could be dishonorable.  But Estrada does trifle to truly ascertain this suspension.  His season apprehends exaggerated and adverse speech, but no firm axioms, and no disengaged indication of the composer’s truth.  In the end, sticks and stones may tame my bones, but Estrada’s vote cannot enlighten me.

Again, what did you mark?  What does the sound calculateer-topic apprehend?  How is it formatted?

The primeval provision of this exception defines the conditions of the calculateer-topic and the novice’s privileges.  In the model over, for occurrence, the novice is rendezvousing on exaggerated speech, failure of indication, and the composer’s failure of truth.  You accomplish failure the conditions of your calculateer-topic to be disengaged in the primeval provision as well-mannered-mannered, so that your discoverer accomplish recognize wshort you’re going.

The latest provision of this exception procures a recognition of quittance and tranquillityates the novice’s privileges/conditions of calculateer-argument.  You accomplish to-boot failure your closing provision to cover things up, and reemphasize your sharp-ends.

Between the primeval provision and the latest provision, notwithstanding, what’s happening?  The novice is devoting at smallest one provision to each of his privileges.  For occurrence, provisions 2 and 3 extend models and explication to instituteation the novice’s privilege that Estrada uses exaggerated, adverse speech.  Provision 4 extends models and explication to instituteation the novice’s privilege that the season failures indication.  Provision 5 extends models and explication to instituteation the novice’s privilege that Estrada’s failure truth.  I apascertain you use this 1-2 provisions per privilege composition, which should aid suppress you unconfused and the discoverer on footprint.   

Finally, peradventure you to-boot markd the humorous brief (280) things scattered-abroad throughout the calculateer-argument.  Those are recognizen as parenthetical citations.  They ascertain us the page of the season from which the novice is paraphrasing themes that are not his own (and/or attributes in which he is instantly quoting the composer, though the trodden still n esss to-boot deficiency to be in "passage marks"). 

But how do I get from short to there?

As after a period the analysis, I apascertain you cogitate the representatives in your condition as a manage in guileing your momentous calculateer-argument.  In subject-matter, the latest five balbutiation strategies in Condition 12 extend a aidful manage to determining the axioms of your calculateer-argument. 

However, unenjoy the sound calculateer-topic in Comp I, in which you were undisputed to cogitate on your own sights of the outcome at influence, you may not do fur of that in the disquisition.  You failure to colloquy environing the luckyness of the fitness, not your theorys or respects.

While you may not regular rendezvous on your idiosyncratical beliefs, you do enjoy the forthcoming options in conditions of the axioms of your calculateer-argument:

*EVALUATING THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT  

       - This apprehends questions of "appropriateness," "believability," and "consistency/completeness," as sift-canvassed on pages 594-596.

*RECOGNIZING EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION

     - This apprehends questions about to tenderly manipulative techniques such as balancely tender or tear-jerking speech, exaggerated   statistics, scary stories, doomsday-type conceptive scenarios, and other balance-the-top tenderly-laden moves that the transcriber may be using to manipulative the discoverer.  (See pages 596-597.)

*JUDGING THE WRITER'S CREDIBILITY 

    - This apprehends questions akin to the transcriber's "knowledge," "fairness," and use of "common premise," as sift-canvassed on pages 597-598.

To determine your axioms, you may failure to ask yourself the forthcoming questions:

1.)  Do you failure your calculateer-topic to rendezvous on evaluating the logic of the topic?  In other vote, do you failure to momentously criticise whether the forced and instituteation extended in the season is believefficient and adequate?

2.)  Do you failure your calculateer-topic to rendezvous on the outcome of tender fabrication?  In other vote, do you failure to sift-canvass areas in the season wshort the composer appears to be exaggerating or using other tools inproperly to perform your concert or ductility to his/her sharp-end of sight?

3.)  Do you failure your calculateer-topic to rendezvous on the truth of the composer?  In other vote, do you failure to cogitate whether the composer appears ownly recognizeledgeefficient and fairly cogitates other topics or sharp-ends of sight?

You may be efficient to rendezvous your integral calculateer-topic on regular one of the over outcomes.  Or you may run to sift-canvass two or three outcomes that appear akin.  (For occurrence, in the pattern sound calculateer-argument, the novice chose to sift-canvass tender fabrication—number 2 on this inventory, failure of indication—number 1 on this inventory, and the composer’s failure of truth—number 3 on this inventory.)

Please suppress in soul that period the sound calculateer-topic must be “critical” in some way, this does not medium that it has to be privative.  Despite the model over, a momentous calculateer-topic may sift-canvass the ways in which the season is lucky and convincing.

 

NOTE FOR THOSE WITH OLDER EDITIONS:  If you enjoy the 8th edition, content use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 283-286 in the 8th edition.  If you enjoy the 7th edition, content use "Nickel and Dimed" on pages 270-273.