The goal of outcome three is to formulate effective arguments through the initiation of a line of Inquiry, explanation of the stakes of the argument, analysis of evidence and assumptions, and effective organization. Outcome three is built on the previous two outcomes. We first need to have a proper understanding of the audience in order to determine the tone, style and conventions we are using, and then we can decide what sources to analyze and use the evidence of the sources to better build up an argument. Being able to build up successful arguments is the purpose of outcome three. I believe I achieved this outcome best through major paper two.

The first part of outcome three is to produce a complex claim based on the research we have done. Not only the understanding of the sources is important, but also the ability to use the sources to fortify the arguments. My topic of MP2 is the effects of filter bubbles. I found this topic interesting during my English class while we were working on how to conduct academic research; you and I typed in the same term in Google Scholar but got completely different results. And this situation arouses my interest to dig deep to find out the reason.

To establish convincing arguments, we need to first have a persuasive complex claim, on which the whole argument will be built. A persuasive complex claim has to include the “Big 5”, which are non-binary claim, stakes, evidence, concession/counterargument, and roadmap. My complex claim in major paper two best shows my ability to produce a complex claim because the claim for this paper is complex, arguable, and has real stakes. First, I give an example of how different users have different links to products on Amazon main page to explain what filter bubbles are in my complex claim. Then, by stating “in fact, filter bubbles were initially designed to increase profit by marketing specific products to users based on their previous searches,” I indicate why filter bubbles are invented. Following the reason of the invention of filter bubbles, I present my claim when I write “however, although filter bubbles offer convenience to users, they also pose a number of problems. One of these problems is that we are generally less likely to be exposed to viewpoints and information that do not align with our view of a ‘normal’ world. As a result, our perspectives become extremely narrow. The other problem is that filter bubbles secretly shape our view of the world.” After the main claim, I introduce the author of the main source that I will be using for my major paper. By saying that “Eli Pariser, the man who coined the term ‘filter bubble’” and “Pariser is one of the first scholars to have considered the social implications of the filter bubble,”I increase my credibility by introducing the fame of the author of my main source.

The stake of the argument is primary because it tells the audience why we should be concerned of the matter being argued. In MP2, I first discuss the situation that different people who search the same term on Google will get different results, and this situation is caused by filter bubbles. Following the introduction, which briefly presents the term “filter bubble”, I develop into my complex claim, which includes the stake of my argument. I explain in my complex claim why people should be aware of the effects of filter bubbles because “it is fairly harmless when information about consumer products is filtered into and out of your personal universe, but different issues arise when personalization affects not just what you buy but what you think.” This sentence indicates that it is important for the readers to know the current issue of filter bubble, and realize how it will affect not only individuals but also the whole society (Fan 2).

I not only include stakes in my complex claim, but also in other parts of the paper. By writing “as a result, we are forced to be isolated from other’s world. Companies that use these algorithms may not intend to affect how users think, but they do. Therefore, we need to be conscious of the filter bubble’s effect and take back control over how we think” in the conclusion, I explained why people should be concerned about filter bubbles.

A good argument needs the inclusion of logic and reasoning. To put it in an easier way, it basically means that in order to produce arguments that are persuasive, we need to go beyond just simply describing and summarizing the sources. Instead, we need to use the evidence strategically and effectively based on the close scrutiny and examination of the sources. Through out my major paper two, I demonstrate analysis of evidence in order to support my argument. According to Scott Fasselle’s article, "Who’s Finding You Online- and are Internet Filter Bubbles Busting your Search Results," I come to the conclusion that “one of the problems posed by filter bubbles is that it only returns information that its algorithms assume corresponds with our opinions or is relevant to us”(Fan 3). Based on the book The Filter Bubble written by Eli Pariser, I come to the conclusion that “ filter bubbles shape our view of the world, and this is one of the consequences of being isolated from different views and content” (Fan 4).I also include a counterargument in my writing based on the reading of Noconnor’s article. I achieved this part of outcome by analyzing the information closely to come to the conclusion that although filter bubbles make our lives easier, it also leads to a number of negative effects.

 A good paper will not only present my own arguments, but will also discuss counterarguments to prove why what I am claiming is important. In order to make an argument complex and persuasive, counterargument is indispensable. In my major paper 2, I discuss that “some scholars argue that filter bubbles have made users’ lives more convenient, because the results produced by search engines are so personalized” and give an example of how filter bubble can be inconvenient by stating “if my English professor asked me to write a paper about the history of the telegraph and how its development affected American foreign relations, the information that I truly need wouldn’t be easily accessible because of the filtering process based on the assumption that information I need would necessarily be relevant to China”(Fan 4).

The last part of outcome four is that the argument has a clear organization and effective transition that develop its line of inquiry. In my major paper two, I first give an introduction of filter bubble by using a personal anecdote to explain what filter bubbles do to us by writing “despite the fact that we both typed in the exact same terms into the exact same search engine, her search produced articles with titles such as ‘Explaining the history of American foreign relations’ and ‘Useful Library on Electric Communication’ while mine came back with ‘The Foreign Relations of China: A History and a Survey’ and ‘Overseas studies and the rise of foreign cultural capital in modern China.’ ”(Fan 1). Following the introduction is my complex claim, which states the main arguments that explain negative effects filter bubbles have on us, what evidence I have to prove these effects, why these effects matter, and how I am going to persuade the readers. After the complex claim, I examine each negative effect of filter bubbles and give evidence to prove each effect. Lastly, I conclude that all the negative effects filter bubbles have on us should draw our attention，and we should not be manipulated by them.