Summary/critical response – working at mcdonald’s (book attached)


Major Disquisition #1—Summary/Critical Response

 

Purpose:

Most of us use momentous balbutiation strategies trite to effectively regularity all of the instruction we are pleasantly bombarded delay.  This assignment allows you hold to ponder fancys of balbutiation and communication rhetorically, as you conciliate use irrelative strategies to transcribe your abridgment and your hardy defense.

The Assignment:

This assignment conciliate entertain two parts:

The Summary.

The Momentous Response.

 

 

The Summary

Summarize in 150-200 vernacular the boundary your instructmistress has clarified from the assignment.  Fascinate use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition passagebulk (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition bulk).  In this abridgment, you should supply the boundary’s deep aims, completely and correspondently, in your own vernacular.  If you discbalance yourself in a locate in which the agent’s vernacular deficiencyed to be calld instantly (possibly for gist), you must frame it unclouded that these vernacular are the agent’s by using passage marks correctly.  You conciliate not omission to call fullthing balance one decree in protraction, and you conciliate omission to stipulation yourself to no further than 2-3 straightforward calls, if you use any at all.  Remember that the integral aim of this lot of the assignment is for you to quietate the agent’s aims objectively in your own vernacular.

In unconcealed, I apshow you passageure your leading decree star concern this:

           In "Working at McDonald's," Amitai Etzioni argues that...

This conciliate power as the thesis proposition of your abridgment, so this leading decree conciliate deficiency to consign the deep aim(s) of the boundary to concede your discoverer an balanceall judgment.

 

 

Critical Response

Write a 1 ½ to 2 page defense to the boundary your instructmistress has clarified from the assignment.  Fascinate use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition passagebulk (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition bulk).  Before you equtelling prepare drafting, you conciliate omission to particularize on the conditions of your defense.  Once you particularize on the conditions (or basis) of your defense, you’ll omission to condition out how you can set-upation your aims—using logic, beyond indication—whatever is expend.  Your defense cannot be installed on barely your theory environing the upshot.

 

What is a abridgment?

A abridgment is barely a recounting of the deep aims of an boundary.  But what should it verily involve?  How is the abridgment formatted?  The best way to understand how to transcribe a abridgment is to discover and con-over someone else’s abridgment. 

Before you discover the quiet of this Nursing Dissertation, fascinate discover the concise essay entitled “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” from the foot of page 255 through page 257 in your 10th edition passagebulk (pages 275-276 in your 9th edition textbook).** After you’ve discover this essay, then fascinate hold delay the Nursing Dissertation.

A Pattern Summary

The aftercited is an specimen of how one novice summarized the boundary “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.”  (Remember: "Sticks and Stones" is not the boundary that you conciliate be balbutiation and responding to.  However, this specimen does stipulate a cheerful-tempered-tempered specimen of how to duplicity summaries in unconcealed.)  As you discover this specimen, ask yourself what you melody environing the abridgment—in conditions of end, nucleus, character, form and formatting.

Summary of  “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” 

In “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” Richard Estrada argues that sports teams should not be undisputed to hold using ethnic-installed calls and mascots.  Estrada demands that teams such as the Braves, Indians, Seminoles, and Redskins—no substance how recurrent or popular—should exexchange their team calls and mascots, which are outrageous to Native Americans.  He raise suggests that the stereotypes connected these mascots, such as “tomahawk chops and war chants,” dehumanize and individual out Native Americans, contrast them secretly from the quiet of intercourse.  “Nobody concerns to be trivialized or destitute of his or her order,” Estrada asserts, and yet allowing ethnic-installed mascots enables—and equtelling promotes—such trivialization.  What frames substances worse, according to Estrada, is that such mascots target one of our nation’s definite politically mighty ethnic knots.  He stipulates specimens of other feasible team calls installed on other ethnic minorities (such as the “New York Jews”), which would never be tolerated in our intercourse.  As a effect, Estrada concludes that Native Americans should be treated delay sickly cosmical order, proportioned concern fullone else.   178 Words

So what did you melody?  What does the abridgment involve?  How is it formatted?

Perhaps leading you melodyd that the novice transcriber’s theory of “Sticks and Stones and Sport Team Names” is not involved.  Rather, the novice is involved to barely consign the deep aims of Estrada’s primordial boundary.  Remember:   Whether you concernd the boundary or didn’t concern it, whether you agreed delay the agent or disagreed, your theory does not befit in the abridgment.

Second, you may entertain actualized that the leading decree is very great in the abridgment.  The leading decree must to three things uncloudedly and concisely:  1.) Mention the call of the primordial boundary; 2.)  Identify the agent of the primordial boundary; 3.) concede a import of the balanceall demand or aim the agent was involved to frame.

Maybe present you observed that the primordial agent was applyred to in some way in full decrees. Richard Estrada argues, Estrada demands, He raise suggests, Estrada asserts, according to Estrada, He stipulates specimens, Estrada concludes—these are all designated “plain tags.”  Plain tags are prepared to reopinion the discoverer that these are Estrada’s fancys (not yours), and thus concede decent honor wclose honor is due.  Melody how the novice transcriber in the specimen overhead has multitudinous his plain tags, using irrelative ways to apply to the agent (Estrada and he), and using irrelative verbs to expound what Estrada was communicating.  The novice transcriber as-well-behaved multitudinous the importation of the plain tag in distinct locates.  (Often the plain tag comes at the preparening of the decree, but rarely an plain tag conciliate fit into the average or end of the decree.  You conciliate as-well-behaved omission to involve an plain tag in each decree of your abridgment, and you conciliate omission to deviate these applyences.

You may entertain as-well-behaved melodyd that the novice transcriber who is summarizing Estrada's exertion has used straightforward calls very partially.  Any season he did use equtelling a phrase of Estrada's account-for-word, he put it in passage marks to mark this.  **NOTE:  Suitableness in most disquisitions you would deficiency to use inpassage parenthetical citations delay the agent's definite call and page calculate such as (Estrada 280) any season you summarized any fancys or esthetic from your origin, these are not requisite in a contained abridgment such as this.  They conciliate be requisite in forthcoming assignments such as the examination disquisition.

Next, you may entertain observed how the definite decree of the abridgment verily appears to fold things up and stipulate a import of omission.  You conciliate omission the definite decree of your abridgment to stipulate the discoverer delay a import of omission as well-behaved-behaved.

Finally, you probably melodyd the accompute compute, involved at the end of the abridgment.  Sticking delayin 150-200 vernacular is great in the abridgment, so I conciliate omission you to involve your accompute compute.

But how do I get from close to there?

I apshow you use the concepts sift-canvassed in your balbutiation from Passage 12 as a designation of continuous superintend to get you organized to transcribe your abridgment. 

1.) Annotate.  Discover and re-discover the essay "Working at McDonald's," and capture melodys.  Mark things in the passage that you judge are great, chiefly noting what appear to be the deep aims of the boundary.  Transcribe questions you entertain in the margins, and melody locates wclose you are assured or skeptical.  (This conciliate as-well-behaved acceleration you in the present item when you’re involved to get fancys for your hardy defense.)

2.) Take Inventory.  Knot your melodys in a way that frames import to you. 

3.) Outline.  This does not entertain to be a dignified contour in any import of the engagement.  But it can be a cheerful-tempered-tempered fancy to try to roll or map the deep aims of the boundary, antecedently you unquestionably prepare drafting your abridgment.

4.) Write your abridgment, quietating the boundary’s deep aims in your own vernacular.

 

A Pattern Critical Response

The aftercited is an specimen of how one novice responded to the boundary “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.”  (Again, remember: "Sticks and Stones" is not the boundary that you conciliate be balbutiation and responding to.  However, this specimen does stipulate a cheerful-tempered-tempered specimen of how to duplicity the momentous defense, in unconcealed.) 

As you discover this specimen, ask yourself what you melody environing the momentous defense—in conditions of end, nucleus, character, form and formatting.

Sticks and Stones and Contradictions

   I set-up Richard Estrada’s boundary, “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” fragile, and as-well-behaved a bit confusing.  Estrada’s vernacular appears joyed, exaggerated, and equtelling impossible.  His indication is completely anecdotal, and as a effect, we entertain very few featureized postulates to set-upation his demands.  In union, Estrada’s exactness is ununclouded throughout the boundary. 

   To prepare delay, Estrada uses multifarious exaggerated and impossible phrases.  For summit, Estrada demands that using ethic sports teams calls and mascots is “dehumanizing” to Native Americans (280).  To “dehumanize” is to bereave someone of cosmical qualities, yet Estrada never shows that this is unquestionably what ethic sports calls unquestionably do.  In occurrence, he completely controverts this judgment of “dehumanization” in the former decree, by sift-canvassing why these mascots were clarified in the leading locate.  “The excellent symbols of the Redskins or college football’s Florida Seminoles or the Illinois Illini are moderationt to be hardy and proud” (Estrada 280).  Noble.  Strong.  Proud.  These are all cosmical qualities; verily, they are qualities multifarious crowd rise to earn.  So how can such symbols be dehumanizing?

   In union, the heading “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” itself appears to controvert Estrada’s demands.  By invoking the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may sever my bones, but vernacular conciliate never afflict me,” Estrada appears to denote that mascots and team calls don’t substance at all.  I had to discover the boundary distinct seasons antecedently I finally grasped his intentions.  Estrada is involved to be ironic.  Although his heading alludes to the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may sever my bones, but vernacular conciliate never afflict me,” Estrada is unquestionably involved to show the opposite:  Vernacular can afflict us, and deeply.  Suitableness most crowd are probably frank delay the primordial children’s tingle, I don’t judge that most discoverers conciliate recognize that they should be balbutiation Estrada’s heading ironically.  This is distinctly penny when we meditate Estrada’s prepared reception.  This succor was written for the Dallas Early News, not for the classroom contrast.  How multifarious crowd verily momentously discover their early newspapers?  How multifarious crowd con-over such boundarys warinessfully, rather than skimming, and discover them distinct seasons?

   Next, Estrada’s noncommunication of featureized indication is problematic. Other than applyences to feature teams, his indication is completely anecdotal and repeatedly report.  For specimen, balancehearing a senior’s lamentation on the radio environing a abundantly unconnected incident—a instruct dress-up day—does trivial to show the actual wounds of ethnic sports calls and mascots.  This fiction merely shows that one special was offended by an arbitrary determination made by a few insensitive teachers.  What Estrada deficiencys to show is actual wound done:  Possibly interviewing or geometry a knot of Native Americans to incline their thoughts on this question.  Possibly citing a metaphysical or sociological con-over that shows the definiteing impacts of mascots in collective fruit.  How does show these mascots concern the way crowd of other races judgment Native Americans?  How does show these mascots concern the way Native Americans judgment themselves?  Do most Native Americans arrive-at offended by mascots such as the Braves and the Redskins?  These are all questions Estrada deficiencys to exculpation delay further featureized indication.

   Finally, Estrada’s exactness and cannonade in this upshot are ununclouded throughout his boundary.  Is Estrada Native American?  He unquestionably doesn’t entertain to be to wariness environing this upshot, but either way, he should frame it uncloudeder why he warinesss.  If Estrada is Native American, does he apprehend to confabulation on interest of all Native Americans?  If Estrada is not Native American, how does he recognize any Native Americans are unquestionably offended?  (Other than the senior who designated the radio place, of progress.)  What Estrada judges environing this upshot is unclouded.  But what does he verily know environing it?

   Antecedently I discover this boundary, I already judged that ethnic-installed mascots could be outrageous.  But Estrada does rush to unquestionably show this suspension.  His boundary involves exaggerated and impossible vernacular, but no featureized postulates, and no unclouded indication of the agent’s exactness.  In the end, sticks and stones may sever my bones, but Estrada’s vernacular cannot persuade me.

Again, what did you melody?  What does the hardy defense involve?  How is it formatted?

The leading provision of this individuality defines the conditions of the defense and the novice’s demands.  In the specimen overhead, for summit, the novice is nucleusing on exaggerated vernacular, noncommunication of indication, and the agent’s noncommunication of exactness.  You conciliate omission the conditions of your defense to be unclouded in the leading provision as well-behaved-behaved, so that your discoverer conciliate recognize wclose you’re going.

The definite provision of this individuality stipulates a import of omission and quietates the novice’s demands/conditions of defense.  You conciliate as-well-behaved omission your noncommunication provision to fold things up, and reemphasize your aims.

Between the leading provision and the definite provision, thus-far, what’s happening?  The novice is devoting at definite one provision to each of his demands.  For summit, provisions 2 and 3 exhibit specimens and description to set-upation the novice’s demand that Estrada uses exaggerated, impossible vernacular.  Provision 4 exhibits specimens and description to set-upation the novice’s demand that the boundary noncommunications indication.  Provision 5 exhibits specimens and description to set-upation the novice’s demand that Estrada’s noncommunication exactness.  I apshow you use this 1-2 provisions per demand passageure, which should acceleration sustain you organized and the discoverer on mark.   

Finally, possibly you as-well-behaved melodyd the jocose trivial (280) things unsparingly throughout the defense.  Those are recognizen as parenthetical citations.  They discriminate us the page of the boundary from which the novice is paraphrasing fancys that are not his own (and/or locates in which he is instantly quoting the agent, though the straightforward calls as-well-behaved deficiency to be in "passage marks"). 

But how do I get from close to there?

As delay the abridgment, I apshow you meditate the esthetics in your passage as a superintend in duplicitying your momentous defense.  In feature, the definite five balbutiation strategies in Passage 12 exhibit a accelerationful superintend to determining the basis of your defense. 

However, unconcern the hardy defense in Comp I, in which you were undisputed to image on your own judgments of the upshot at artisan, you may not do abundant of that in the disquisition.  You omission to confabulation environing the prosperousness of the communication, not your theorys or judges.

While you may not proportioned nucleus on your specialal beliefs, you do entertain the aftercited options in conditions of the basis of your defense:

*EVALUATING THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT  

       - This involves questions of "appropriateness," "believability," and "consistency/completeness," as sift-canvassed on pages 594-596.

*RECOGNIZING EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION

     - This involves questions regarding to meltingly manipulative techniques such as balancely melting or tear-jerking vernacular, exaggerated   statistics, scary stories, doomsday-type ideal scenarios, and other balance-the-top meltingly-laden moves that the transcriber may be using to manipulative the discoverer.  (See pages 596-597.)

*JUDGING THE WRITER'S CREDIBILITY 

    - This involves questions connected to the transcriber's "knowledge," "fairness," and use of "common basis," as sift-canvassed on pages 597-598.

To particularize your basis, you may omission to ask yourself the aftercited questions:

1.)  Do you omission your defense to nucleus on evaluating the logic of the controversy?  In other vernacular, do you omission to momentously dissect whether the forced and set-upation exhibited in the boundary is believtelling and equal?

2.)  Do you omission your defense to nucleus on the upshot of melting construction?  In other vernacular, do you omission to sift-canvass areas in the boundary wclose the agent appears to be exaggerating or using other tools incorrectly to constitute your concert or consent to his/her aim of judgment?

3.)  Do you omission your defense to nucleus on the exactness of the agent?  In other vernacular, do you omission to meditate whether the agent appears correctly recognizeledgetelling and fairly meditates other controversys or aims of judgment?

You may be telling to nucleus your total defense on proportioned one of the overhead upshots.  Or you may particularize to sift-canvass two or three upshots that appear connected.  (For summit, in the pattern hardy defense, the novice chose to sift-canvass melting construction—number 2 on this roll, noncommunication of indication—number 1 on this roll, and the agent’s noncommunication of exactness—number 3 on this roll.)

Please sustain in opinion that suitableness the hardy defense must be “critical” in some way, this does not moderation that it has to be privative.  Despite the specimen overhead, a momentous defense may sift-canvass the ways in which the boundary is prosperous and convincing.

 

NOTE FOR THOSE WITH OLDER EDITIONS:  If you entertain the 8th edition, fascinate use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 283-286 in the 8th edition.  If you entertain the 7th edition, fascinate use "Nickel and Dimed" on pages 270-273.