English 102 Argumentative Essay Assignment Informed by

English 102 Argumentative Essay Assignment Informed by

English102ArgumentativeEssay Assignment Informed by ResearchFirstDraft due 05 June (750-1000 words—2 ½ pages minimum to a maximum of 3 pages)FinalDraft due 12 June (1200 words—approximately 3 ½ pages minimum to a maximum of 4pages)
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—Write an essay in which you stake out your ownposition with respect to a current public or academic debate.
First draft is due 05 June—bring two copies of your first draft to classfor the scheduled Peer Feedback Writing Exercise. Your draft should be in MLAformat; therefore, it should be typed and double spaced.
WHAT YOUR ESSAY SHOULD LOOK LIKE—Your essay must, of course, have anintroductory paragraph. In your introduction, briefly outline the debateso that you explain for your reader the core of the issue as you understand it.That is, establish whatâ€s at stake in the debate. (Be sure to answer thesequestions: “Who cares?†“So what?â€) Then identify the two researched articlesthat you will be responding to, and briefly encapsulate their arguments.Finally, set out your own thesis – i.e., the key claims that you will be makingin support of your own argument.
The Body of the Essay, briefly summarize the arguments ofthe two articles. Then critically respond to each of those arguments inturn. (Agree, disagree, partially agree — but give reasons.) Build upyour own argument with paragraphs developing your thesis. In one of theseparagraphs you may want to plant a “naysayer†and refute the naysayerâ€sposition in defense of your own. (Take a look at the very useful chapter 6 of They Say / I Say — “Skeptics May Object:Planting a Naysayer in Your Text.â€) Of course, one of your two researchedarticles may already serve this function in your essay – that is, it may setout a position that you in fact disagree with – in which case there will be noneed to imagine a hypotheticalnaysayer. Nevertheless, this is the moment in your essay when youâ€ll want toreturn to and strengthen your refutation of that counterposition. Drive homeyour argument with a short concluding paragraph.
Your essay must have a Works Cited page in MLA format. Besure that your citations within the essay follow MLA format too. You arefree to draw upon, and cite, morethan the minimum two required research sources.
THEINTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHEnglish102ProfessorHeather MacLeod
Atemplate for the introduction to the Argumentative Essay:
In recent years, there has beenpublic and academic debate about the question / meaning / validity / value ofX. At the heart / core / centre of this controversial / confusing / oftenmisunderstood matter is Y [a formulation of what you take to be the crucial or most interesting or most compellingaspect of question X]. Author AB, in her article “__________,†claims thatX is [very brief summary of ABâ€s main point, or of the point by AB that youwill take up.] In this regard, her position lines up with that of otheropponents of X. In contrast, author CD, in his article, “X Reconsidered,â€suggests that most claims made for X have missed the problem of Z. In short, CDproposes that [very brief summary of CDâ€s main point, or of the point by CDthat you will take up]. CDâ€s argument, as I will show, is more persuasivethan ABâ€s because of the attention he gives to Z. [Or ABâ€s is more persuasivethan CDâ€s because of…. Or, I partially agree with AB and with CD for the reasonthat….] In the end, though, I contend that CDâ€s position would be strongerstill if he were to take into consideration Y [or: is still not entirelyconvincing as a result of not considering ZZ].
An example of an introduction to the ArgumentativeEssay:
In the last five years, there hasbeen much debate about the online encyclopedia Wikipediaâ€s value as a reliableand authoritative source of information. At the heart of this controversy isthe question of whether an open-ended and unsupervised process that attractsanonymous, collective, voluntary authors can produce reference articles of thesame quality as those produced by a contract-driven and editorially reviewedprocess that pays identified and credentialed authors for their work. The Encyclopedia Brittanica, in its 2006press release “Fatally Flawed: Refuting the Recent Study On EncyclopedicAccuracy by the Journal Nature,â€argues that the former process cannot compete with “strong scholarship, soundjudgment and disciplined editorial review†(2).In this regard, the Britannicaposition lines up with that of other detractors of Wikipedia. In contrast, Peter Binkley, in “Wikipedia Grows Up,†suggests that theonline encyclopedia has more of an institutional structure than one might atfirst think, and that its volunteer administrators, though they do not strictlyspeaking supervise the writing of any article, do ensure that simple butpowerful rules (such as citation) are followed. These rules, Binkley notes, arethere to make the most of the ceaselessly ongoing volunteer effort to correct,amend, and improve articles. Although Britannicaâ€s hostility to Wikipedia isunderstandable, I find Binkleyâ€s emphasis on the structure of Wikipediaâ€sopen-endedness more persuasive. The only criticism I would make of his argumentis that while I see how incremental collective tinkering, over a long duration,should result in improved articles, Ido not see how it could ever produce even one very strongly written andconceived article.

"You need a similar assignment done from scratch? Our qualified writers will help you with a guaranteed AI-free & plagiarism-free A+ quality paper, Confidentiality, Timely delivery & Livechat/phone Support.

Discount Code: CIPD30

WHATSAPP CHAT: +1 (781) 253-4162

Click ORDER NOW..