So, your parents have so-called “claimed” and “experienced” that academics are important aspects of a growing student’s life. I could believe their claim. My past and current experiences deem it a worthy idea. My experiences are convincing enough! I have successfully demonstrated Outcome 3, to produce complex, analytic, persuasive arguments that matter in academic contexts, as exemplified in my Major Paper 1 and Major Paper 2. Proving a complex claim requires analytic and persuasive arguments that can prove factual information to an audience. I chose to exemplify these criteria in both my Major Papers because both these assignments were written in response to controversial ethical disagreements.
In addition to constructing a complex claim, I considered proving my point through a continuous line of inquiry. In my Major Paper 1, I argue against the Oakland, California School Board’s decision to teach classes in Ebonics, “The Oakland School Board’s efforts to improve Ebonics-speakers’ English literacy and academic aptitude may be in vain. [This] decision would ultimately segregate these students again—further down the line. Although the students may develop equal academic proficiency, their alternative dialect would maintain distance from English—the dialect spoken by most—its position as a communication barrier in innumerable contexts.” (3). My basic claim is against Ebonics being the primary dialect of instruction. To expand on this claim, I argue that this method of instruction is counterintuitive and detrimental in the long run. Articulating this carefully is imperative. The complex claim is the first impression, or roadmap that determines your audience’s level of engagement. In my complex claim, I utilized action words such as “segregate” instead of simpler, drier, more universal terms like “separate” or “set apart”, to emphasize the segregation of races and cultures, an allusion to Martin Luther King Jr.’s journey to end segregation. The word “segregation” is commonly associated with this movement. To persuade the reader effectively, I used superlative terms such as “most” and “innumerable” to emphasize the difference between number of Ebonics- and proper English-speakers. By precisely articulating a carefully persuasive claim, I am successful in implicitly implying the stakes, Ebonics-speakers and those who are affiliated with them, the African American population. By indirectly expanding stakes affected, I, the writer, am able to appeal my writing to a wider audience, or better engage my audience who may now have something broader to relate to, the future of an entire ethnic culture that is prevalently involved with modern and urban life.
Similarly, I applied the concept of careful articulation and persuasion to my Major Paper 2. To engage my audiences’ deeper conscience, I made use of a rhetorical strategy to place emphasis on my complex claim, “Human progression has developed a much more complex field of recognition and identification of rightful ownership. This extensively refined system of intellectual ownership questions the validity of the laws’ current purpose. Societies’ needs evolve with human development, as laws are amended to better compensate for societies’ demands. Do Fair Use Laws retain a modernized purpose parallel to that of past society? Or has human progression completely altered the purpose of Fair Use Laws?” (1). Here, I clearly state that the stakes involved are human society, meaning the audience is distinctly involved. I first pose factual information, then I question the reader indirectly, about selflessness. Would the reader rather benefit for oneself? Or for the entire population? Do we stay with the old? Or is it in with the new? The misinterpretations and wrongful manipulations jeopardize the First Nations peoples of this continent that is actually rightfully theirs. I guide that misinterpretation equates to misguided actions, which is effective to the Native peoples, but also on a dual-conscious-level: existential and societal.
In both Major Papers, I examine my evidence closely and generate conclusions in support of my complex claims. In both essays, I examine the evidence the audience is most familiar with: the superficial and societal indications and problems. This guides my argument to more powerful societal and existential problems that have a greater magnitude of impact on the stakes involved, basically us humans. In Major Paper 2, I first acknowledge that “American society inaccurately labels other cultures and blindly follows a conformist society’s false presumptions and pretenses” (2). This societal claim relates to a more superficial observance, “Disney’s story of Pocahontas acts as an umbrella of assumptions about the entire diverse population of Native Americans. Disney portrays the Native warriors as ‘savages’ and settlers as ‘noble’ explorers to distinguish a false extreme between the two communities (American, 3)” (5). This conclusion’s significance is then exemplified in my argument that “The American system of copyright ownership is obviously flawed; it allows for inaccurate and false portrayals of historical artifacts”, persuading the audience in support of my initial claim.
To fairly encompass both sides of the argument, in Major Paper 1, I address the counterargument, “Although the short-term benefit of educating the students in their ‘native’ tongue—Ebonics—may be academic proficiency, the long-term effects of being educated in a dialect foreign to the country of that dialect’s utilization would unavoidably include differences in comprehension with the majority. This linguistic difference will yield misunderstandings, which form prejudices. One could argue that this difference in perspective may actually be constructive. Yes, it may be. But speaking Ebonics, a similar dialect to English, subconsciously accompanies negative connotations; ‘’bad’ and ‘black’ have been interchangeable for too long […] The practice of coupling black with bad is common: black mail, black list, black magic, black market—and now, ‘black English’’ (1)”. By addressing the counterclaim and arguing against it, I have better persuaded my audience into siding with my claim.
Similarly, in my Major Paper 2, I address the trivial possibility of “[branding] abstract concepts encompassing culture and history with a distinct, explicit owner” (7). This is obviously a silly thought; it is impossible! By addressing the moderately extreme sides of the argument, I have given the audience more than enough information to articulate their stance on my complex claim.
Finally, to keep my thoughts untangled and understandable, I outlined both my Major Papers. In each outline, I included a line of inquiry that acted as the glue or string that ran through the paper, connecting the logical thoughts and conclusions. My general outline for Major Paper 1 split into paragraph sections: Introduction, Argument/Standpoint, Language, Practical Application of Language, Language Constructs Identity, Identity, Identity Affects the Lasting Effects of Ebonics, Power, Practical Application of Power, Method of Influence, Depth of Power, and Conclusion. To guide the reader through my essay, practically my thought process, I alternated between articulating minor claims and connective logical paragraphs, linking one thought to another.
In my Major Paper 2 Outline, I split my thoughts into two major sections: background information and the American System of Ownership. Within the Background, I discussed all the information that led me to a forming a complex claim: Disney’s story of Pocahontas, its appropriation of a historical artifact, and the societal and existential effects of such appropriation on modern society. My discussion of the American System of Ownership indirectly articulates that the American people are a large contributor to this problem. The system is skewed, as exemplified my points made in this section of my outline. The tangents involved argue my complex claim in different contexts, relating to a wider audience.
icons at the top right corner of the subsection.