English 2 paper 1 | English homework help
Major Tractate #1—Summary/Critical Apology (Book Attached) 2 tractates Required but contrariant
Most of us use hazardous lection strategies everyday to effectively regularity all of the counsel we are pleasantly bombarded after a while. This assignment allows you endure to scrutinize ideas of lection and rejoinderableness rhetorically, as you earn use contrariant strategies to transcribe your epitome and your vigorous apology.
This assignment earn accept two parts:
Summarize in 150-200 suffrage the name your schoolmaster has selected from the assignment. Please use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition textcompass (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition compass). In this epitome, you should reinforcement the name’s deep sharp-ends, totally and correspondently, in your own suffrage. If you meet yourself in a position in which the originator’s suffrage demanded to be cited undeviatingly (possibly for argument), you must produce it disentangled that these suffrage are the originator’s by using quotation marks well-mannered. You earn not insufficiency to cite anything aggravate one doom in extension, and you earn insufficiency to period yourself to no prefer than 2-3 frequented cites, if you use any at all. Remember that the undiminished sharp-end of this interepose of the assignment is for you to reposeate the originator’s sharp-ends objectively in your own suffrage.
In open, I applaud you erection your primary doom triton love this:
In "Working at McDonald's," Amitai Etzioni argues that...
This earn office as the topic announcement of your epitome, so this primary doom earn demand to consign the deep sharp-end(s) of the name to concede your discoverer an aggravateall aim.
Write a 1 ½ to 2 page apology to the name your schoolmaster has selected from the assignment. Please use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition textcompass (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition compass). Before you uniform arise impressment, you earn insufficiency to custodyer on the stipulations of your apology. Once you custodyer on the stipulations (or basis) of your apology, you’ll insufficiency to form out how you can acceleration your sharp-ends—using logic, after a whileout deposition—whatever is misspend. Your apology cannot be inveterate on solely your impression encircling the manifestation.
A Sample Summary
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 recognizen to endure using ethnic-inveterate names and mascots. Estrada demands that teams such as the Braves, Indians, Seminoles, and Redskins—no material how ordinary or popular—should diversify their team names and mascots, which are indecent to Native Americans. He prefer suggests that the stereotypes connected these mascots, such as “tomahawk chops and war chants,” dehumanize and individual out Native Americans, contrast them separate from the repose of community. “Nobody loves to be trivialized or robbed of his or her order,” Estrada asserts, and yet allowing ethnic-inveterate mascots enables—and uniform promotes—such trivialization. What produces materials worse, according to Estrada, is that such mascots target one of our nation’s lowest politically potent ethnic bunchs. He provides samples of other feasible team names inveterate on other ethnic minorities (such as the “New York Jews”), which would never be tolerated in our community. As a outcome, Estrada concludes that Native Americans should be treated after a while sincere ethnical order, proper love everyone else. 178 Words
Sample Hazardous Response
Sticks and Stones and Contradictions
I rest Richard Estrada’s name, “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” pointless, and too a bit confusing. Estrada’s phraseology seems overjoyed, exaggerated, and uniform impossible. His deposition is wholly anecdotal, and as a outcome, we entertain very few embodied events to acceleration his demands. In restitution, Estrada’s exactness is undisentangled throughout the name.
To arise after a while, Estrada uses divers exaggerated and impossible phrases. For occurrence, Estrada demands that using ethic sports teams names and mascots is “dehumanizing” to Native Americans (280). To “dehumanize” is to despoil someone of ethnical qualities, yet Estrada never confirms that this is substantially what ethic sports names substantially do. In event, he totally dissents this belief of “dehumanization” in the anterior doom, by discussing why these mascots were selected in the primary establish. “The grand symbols of the Redskins or nursery football’s Florida Seminoles or the Illinois Illini are meant to be vigorous and proud” (280). Noble. Strong. Proud. These are all ethnical qualities; positively, they are qualities divers nation aspire to acquire. So how can such symbols be dehumanizing?
In restitution, the name “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” itself seems to dissent Estrada’s demands. By invoking the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may split my bones, but suffrage earn never trouble me,” Estrada seems to import that mascots and team names don’t material at all. I had to discover the name separate times antecedently I finally grasped his intentions. Estrada is arduous to be ironic. Although his name alludes to the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may split my bones, but suffrage earn never trouble me,” Estrada is substantially arduous to confirm the opposite: Suffrage can trouble us, and deeply. While most nation are probably well-mannered-acquainted after a while the primary children’s tingle, I don’t price that most discoverers earn recognize that they should be lection Estrada’s name ironically. This is specially gentleman when we deem Estrada’s intended auditory. This column was written for the Dallas Early News, not for the classroom contrast. How divers nation indeed hazardously discover their early newspapers? How divers nation con-over such names custodyfully, rather than skimming, and discover them separate times?
Next, Estrada’s delaydrawal of embodied deposition is problematic. Other than references to point teams, his deposition is wholly anecdotal and often hearsay. For sample, aggravatehearing a father’s disease on the radio encircling a largely unconnected incident—a school dress-up day—does insignificant to confirm the legitimate detriments of ethnic sports names and mascots. This narrative singly shows that one peculiar was offended by an unencumbered firmness made by a few insensitive teachers. What Estrada demands to confirm is legitimate detriment done: Possibly interviewing or geometry a bunch of Native Americans to heed their thoughts on this material. Possibly citing a psychical or sociological con-over that confirms the durable impacts of mascots in political bud. How does show these mascots seek the way nation of other races aim Native Americans? How does show these mascots seek the way Native Americans aim themselves? Do most Native Americans arrive-at offended by mascots such as the Braves and the Redskins? These are all questions Estrada demands to rejoinder after a while prefer embodied deposition.
Finally, Estrada’s exactness and boarding in this manifeposition are undisentangled throughout his name. Is Estrada Native American? He positively doesn’t accept to be to custody encircling this manifestation, but either way, he should produce it disentangleder why he custodys. If Estrada is Native American, does he apprehend to accost on advantage of all Native Americans? If Estrada is not Native American, how does he recognize any Native Americans are substantially offended? (Other than the father who designated the radio position, of conduct.) What Estrada thinks encircling this manifeposition is disentangled. But what does he indeed know encircling it?
Antecedently I discover this name, I already priced that ethnic-inveterate mascots could be indecent. But Estrada does rush to substantially confirm this deprivation. His name understands exaggerated and impossible phraseology, but no embodied events, and no disentangled deposition of the originator’s exactness. In the end, sticks and stones may split my bones, but Estrada’s suffrage cannot persuade me.
Again, what did you heed? What does the vigorous apology understand? How is it formatted?
The primary condition of this individuality defines the stipulations of the apology and the novice’s demands. In the sample overhead, for occurrence, the novice is convergenceing on exaggerated phraseology, delaydrawal of deposition, and the originator’s delaydrawal of exactness. You earn insufficiency the stipulations of your apology to be disentangled in the primary condition as well-mannered, so that your discoverer earn recognize wless you’re going.
The terminal condition of this individuality provides a view of misentry and reposeates the novice’s demands/stipulations of apology. You earn too insufficiency your closing condition to envelop things up, and reemphasize your sharp-ends.
Between the primary condition and the terminal condition, however, what’s happening? The novice is devoting at lowest one condition to each of his demands. For occurrence, conditions 2 and 3 tender samples and interpretation to acceleration the novice’s demand that Estrada uses exaggerated, impossible phraseology. Condition 4 tenders samples and interpretation to acceleration the novice’s demand that the name delaydrawals deposition. Condition 5 tenders samples and interpretation to acceleration the novice’s demand that Estrada’s delaydrawal exactness. I applaud you use this 1-2 conditions per demand erection, which should acceleration protect you arranged and the discoverer on vestige.
Finally, possibly you too heedd the laughable insignificant (280) things injudiciously throughout the apology. Those are recognizen as parenthetical citations. They number us the page of the name from which the novice is paraphrasing ideas that are not his own (and/or establishs in which he is undeviatingly quoting the originator, though the frequented cites too demand to be in "quotation marks").
But how do I get from less to there?
As after a while the epitome, I applaud you deem the materials in your stipulation as a superintend in crafting your hazardous apology. In point, the terminal five lection strategies in Stipulation 12 tender a accelerationful superintend to determining the basis of your apology.
However, unlove the vigorous apology in Comp I, in which you were recognizen to animadvert on your own aims of the manifeposition at workman, you may not do greatly of that in the tractate. You insufficiency to confabulation encircling the successfulness of the rejoinderableness, not your impressions or prices.
While you may not proper convergence on your peculiaral beliefs, you do accept the forthcoming options in stipulations of the basis of your apology:
*EVALUATING THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT
- This understands questions of "appropriateness," "believability," and "consistency/completeness," as discussed on pages 594-596.
*RECOGNIZING EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION
- This understands questions relative-to to emotionally manipulative techniques such as aggravately emotional or tear-jerking phraseology, exaggerated statistics, scary stories, doomsday-type inventive scenarios, and other aggravate-the-top emotionally-laden moves that the transcriber may be using to manipulative the discoverer. (See pages 596-597.)
*JUDGING THE WRITER'S CREDIBILITY
- This understands questions cognate to the transcriber's "knowledge," "fairness," and use of "common account," as discussed on pages 597-598.