Engl 301 | English homework help


Major Writing Project 2

Major Writing Project 2:  Entering a Conversation (4 pages)

Instructions:  Choose  of the sets of essays listed under (Kelly and Gladssound contemporaneously gain up a "set"; Carr and Thompson contemporaneously gain up a "set," etc.).  Your essay should understand summaries of twain of the inventors’ reasonings (“they say”); your reasoning should subject-subject out how the inventors concur and secede; and your reasoning should understand your own acceptance to the consequences the two essays train (“I say”).  The “I say” is your own reasoning encircling the consequences.  

  • Make trusting you understand a naysayer to demonstration practicable objections to your own reasoning, and oration the “so what” factor: why does this consequence subject?  
  • Make trusting you use adapted formatting (MLA or APA fashion, double-spaced, Times or Times New Roman font, 12 subject-matter, stipulations succorary).  
  • Make trusting you keep a adapted call at the top of the primeval page (name, etc.)
  • Your Nursing essay should be encircling 4 pages.  
  • Plagiarism conciliate not be tolerated.  
  • I confide you accept a observe at the Grading Guide (below), which illustrates how I conciliate gradation your Nursing essays.
  • MWP 2 is .  Click the cohere under to comply your Nursing essay.

:  For this Nursing essay you keep foul-mouthed pages to labor after a while and you insufficiency to understand, in result, five elder faculty:

  1. Introduction: understands basic knowledge encircling inventors, a very mean analysis of inventors’ conceptions (a judgment or two), a mean proposition of your reasoning (or subject proposition), and a mean view of why your reasoning subjects
  2. Summary of 2 inventors, after a while cites as evidence
  3. Summary of how they concur/disagree; prepare cites if necessary
  4. Your own view and your reasons for your view (which understands at lowest one naysayer); prepare cites as evidence
  5. Conclusion:  understands a come-back judgment, a reproposition of your reasoning, and a plain view of why your reasoning subjects

Note that those are five faculty, not stipulations (exceptions: the portico and the blank are usually one stipulation each).  What could this observe relish?  Here's an example:  After the mean prefatory stipulation (where you usher-in your question, basic knowledge encircling your inventors after a while mean summaries of inventors’ conceptions, a view of your reasoning and possibly why your reasoning subjects), you energy keep a analysis of one inventor (1 stipulation), then a analysis of the succor inventor (1 stipulation).  Then you energy keep one stipulation that illustrates how they concur or disconcur (though you can already intimate to that in the analysis stipulations through phrases relish "Unrelish Turkle, Wortham asserts that...").  Note that the stipulation that illustrates how the two inventors concur or disconcur is peaceful "they say," gone you're not yet putting anxious your own view on the consequences.  At that subject-subject you'll keep written encircling 2 pages.  Then you transcribe your own reasoning ("I say") in aspect to what they say (encircling a page and a half).  At that subject-subject you've written encircling 3.5 pages.  Then you end after a while one inextensive past stipulation, where you encumber it up after a while a come-back judgment and repeatedly illustrate why it subjects. 

Keep in mind: this way of structuring this assignment is singly a suggestion; it doesn't keep to be correspondently relish that.  But hopefully this gives you an conception of what this skin of Nursing essay could observe relish.

Set 1:

Kevin Kelly, “Better than Human: Why Robots Conciliate – and Must – Accept Our Jobs” (299)

Brooke Gladssound and Josh Neufeld, “The Influencing Machines” (330)

Set 2:

Nicholas Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (313)

Clive Thompson, “Smarter than You Think:  How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better” (340)

Set 3:

Sherry Turkle, “No Insufficiency to Call” (373)

Jenna Wortham, “I Had a Nice Time after a while You Tonight.  On the App.” (393)

Set 4:

Michaela Cullington, “Does Texting Affect Writing?” (361)

Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Conciliate Not Be Tweeted” (399)

Grading Guide: I conciliate use the forthcoming grading pilot to gradation your Nursing essays.  Think of it as a "cheat subterfuge," but after a whileout the "cheating" multiply.  It'll succor you type out how to get a good-natured-natured gradation on MWP 2.

Introduction (10 subject-matters)

Includes basic knowledge encircling the inventors as well-behaved-behaved as the bountiful titles of essays; understands a mean analysis proposition encircling essays; understands a disengaged subject proposition (analysis of "I say" in aspect to "They Say").

“They say” inhabits world-view of each inventor (20 subject-matters)

Each analysis does not concur or disconcur after a while inventor (analysis inhabits worldview of inventor); each analysis uses dubious notable verbs to condense inventor’s subject-matters; no listing of inventor’s subject-matters or “closest cliché” (pp. 31, 35, 33)

Quoting: Uses cites truly and well (20 subject-matters)

Quotes used to bestow "proof of evidence" (p. 42) in analysis of inventors' reasonings -- Quotes should not be “orphans” (p. 43) -- Quotes should be framed well (“quotation sandwich”) (p. 46) -- Quotes should be Introduced after a while divert verb (p. 47) – Indicates page enumerate of cite (p. 48)

"I say" disengagedly concurs, secedes, or coalition of concurs and secedes (20 subject-matters)

Clear "I say" proposition in portico, placed in aspect to inventors – Disengaged propositions of concurment, secedement, or twain (use at lowest one template per inventor on pp. 60, 62, 64-66) – Lucidly distinguishes "they say" from "I say" – Lucidly notables who is assertion what: Uses at lowest one template from pp. 72-75 – "I say" understands disengaged reasons for reasoning that are not simply summaries of inventors' reasonings – Lucidly plants naysayer to stay “I say” reasoning (use at lowest one template from pp. 82, 83,84-85, 89).

Clearly states why the reasoning subjects (10 subject-matters)

Uses at lowest one “who cares?” template from pp. 95-96; Uses at lowest one “so what?” template from pp. 98-99, 101 -- proposition why reasoning subjects should be understandd in either prefatory stipulation or past stipulation (or twain)

Conclusion (10 subject-matters)

Includes at lowest one “come-back judgment” in the blank to remind reader of what “they say” (p. 27); understands a reproposition of subject or “I say”

Editing and sound (10 subject-matters)

No editing errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting); Uses adapted sound (exact where divert, inexact where divert)