Outcome 2

Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content

To read, analyze, and synthesize complex texts and incorporate multiple kinds of evidence purposefully in order to generate and support writing.

  • The writing demonstrates an understanding of the course texts as necessary for the purpose at hand.
  • Course texts are used in strategic, focused ways (for example: summarized, cited, applied, challenged, re-contextualized) to support the goals of the writing.
  • The writing is intertextual, meaning that a “conversation” between texts and ideas is created in support of the writer’s goals.
  • The writer is able to utilize multiple kinds of evidence gathered from various sources (primary and secondary – for example, library research, interviews, questionnaires, observations, cultural artifacts) in order to support writing goals.
  • The writing demonstrates responsible use of the MLA (or other appropriate) system of documenting sources.

 

Every argument must have evidence to be considered “worthwhile” to agree with. This common knowledge is relevant in every aspect of life, whether it be an argument with a friend or an essay to propose a big issue. Evidence is key to a strong argument, and comes in many different styles. The specific type of evidence we have been focusing on in this class, and particularly myself for my SA2 was evidence synthesized from articles we found online. For my synthesis essay, I synthesized two articles both dealing with the Charlie Hebdo massacres and gave my personal insight that I do not personally believe in #JeSuisCharlie. To be able to write a good synthesis essay, I had to understand the articles I was reading well and to look for any rhetorical cues that were apparent in the articles. In my SA2, I said “Between these two articles, one of the main differences is the bias, but more specifically the diction and syntax used within the articles to refute or prove a point.” I then continued by stating how both relate Muslims differently. One essay distinguished the difference between terrorists and Muslims, stating that the radicals “have sold their souls to hell” (2). On the other hand, the second article labeled Muslims not only as barbarians but labeled them as “violence-prone Muslims”. Rhetorical differences such as these are vital in understanding the meaning of each article.

Throwing facts into an essay does not do justice unless it is correctly cited and if it flows together with the rest of the essay. “In Sandip Roy’s article “#JeSuisCharlie? No I’m not really Charlie Hebdo; Heres why”, he proposes that although freedom of speech is important, being sensitive of others beliefs whether different from your own is also important as well. On the flip side, Jaana Woiceshyn in her article “Freedom of Speech and Business: What Charlie Hebdo taught us (again)” believes the right method to protect full freedom of speech would be to increase production and increase security to make sure an attack doesn’t happen again.” This excerpt from my SA2 not only correctly cited the sources in question but shows the relevance of the sources to the paper. This is why I decided to choose SA2 as my sample piece for my understanding of outcome 2.

rich_text    
Drag to rearrange sections
Image/File Upload
attachment 30842263  
Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content
rich_text    

Page Comments