create your own ARGUMENT, to see something that others (G&B perhaps?) do not see.

1. Title: Adding a subtitle would help clarify. 2. Will be critiqued…by whom ？All this sort of thing is ”scaffolding” —saying what you did (I

decided to interview X or read article Y…) 3. Definitely cut to chase : Graff and Briksenstein say_ , but they forget__. 4. Best not to “agree”: makes it seem like it’s just your opinion. Profs hardly ever use. Instead,

demonstrate (with evid) that the author you’re agreeing with is right ! 5. Is any of this new information? That’s your job as a writer: to open reader’s eyes to what we

might have missed. Does the reader not know that arguments have a position ? 6. You do cite your source well. But you are basically just summarizing their position, and say-

ing you agree, which is nice…but not teaching your reader anything. 7. Know your rules about quoting: TSIS ch 3, WA 260-3, and “Guidelines for Integrating Quota-

tions”. And don’t forget page numbers, especially for quotes.

The good news is: Write clearly, and you have a good handle on this text. The bad news is” YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY SORT OF ARGUMENT,TENSION,PROBLEM,OMISSION. THAT is the goal of a writer: to have an idea (WA p 26). So…all you have here is a summary. You are on the right track when you look at where they fail (last page or so), but you don’t really explain that failure, or give actual example.

So-you will want to revise this, to create your own ARGUMENT, to see something that others (G&B perhaps?) do not see. For ex, the templates (while well-intended) might actually KEEP people from thinking learning. OR they see everything as about logic, but what about emotion? Etc.

Above all, YOU have to make a contribution to the conversation, not say what’s already obvious, like that arguments takes a position. In fact, if it’s obvious, by definition it does NOT belong in your essay.

Really work hard to find a PROBLEM with G& B…or any of our authors.