Summary/critical response – working at mcdonald’s (book attached)
Major Nursing essay #1—Summary/Critical Response
Most of us use exact balbutiation strategies usual to effectively order all of the counsel we are gratefully bombarded after a while. This assignment allows you reocean to explore proposals of balbutiation and congeniality rhetorically, as you accomplish use unanalogous strategies to transcribe your tabulation and your solid defense.
This assignment accomplish accept two parts:
The Exact Response.
Summarize in 150-200 expression the designation your professor has selected from the assignment. Gladden use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition quotationmagnitude (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition magnitude). In this tabulation, you should refreshment the designation’s ocean aims, perfectly and precisely, in your own expression. If you meet yourself in a footing in which the creator’s expression scantinessed to be spectryd straightly (may-be for consciousness), you must compel it evident that these expression are the creator’s by using passage marks correctly. You accomplish not omission to spectry integralthing balance one passage in prolixity, and you accomplish omission to order yourself to no aid than 2-3 straightforward spectrys, if you use any at all. Remember that the undiminished aim of this ingredient of the assignment is for you to quietate the creator’s aims objectively in your own expression.
In open, I advise you construction your primeval passage celebrity love this:
In "Working at McDonald's," Amitai Etzioni argues that...
This accomplish capacity as the disquisition declaration of your tabulation, so this primeval passage accomplish scantiness to transfer the ocean aim(s) of the designation to concede your decipherer an balanceall object.
Write a 1 ½ to 2 page defense to the designation your professor has selected from the assignment. Gladden use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 260-262 of your 10th edition quotationmagnitude (or pages 280-283 of your 9th edition magnitude). Before you polite-mannered-balanced originate impressment, you accomplish omission to designate on the provisions of your defense. Once you designate on the provisions (or facts) of your defense, you’ll omission to condition out how you can livelihood your aims—using logic, delayout token—whatever is divert. Your defense cannot be domiciled on barely your light environing the manifestation.
What is a tabulation?
A tabulation is barely a recounting of the ocean aims of an designation. But what should it unquestionably embody? How is the tabulation formatted? The best way to glean how to transcribe a tabulation is to decipher and inquire someone else’s tabulation.
Before you decipher the quiet of this disquisition, gladden decipher the closinging essay entitled “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” from the depth of page 255 through page 257 in your 10th edition quotationmagnitude (pages 275-276 in your 9th edition textbook).** After you’ve decipher this essay, then gladden reocean after a while the disquisition.
A Illustration Summary
The subjoined is an in of how one learner summarized the designation “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.” (Remember: "Sticks and Stones" is not the designation that you accomplish be balbutiation and responding to. However, this in does yield a cheerful-natured-natured in of how to manoeuvre summaries in open.) As you decipher this in, ask yourself what you still n ess environing the tabulation—in provisions of design, convergence, sound, construction 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 understandn to reocean using ethnic-domiciled spectrys and mascots. Estrada vindications that teams such as the Braves, Indians, Seminoles, and Redskins—no theme how normal or popular—should diversify their team spectrys and mascots, which are scandalous to Native Americans. He aid suggests that the stereotypes obligatory these mascots, such as “tomahawk chops and war chants,” dehumanize and solitary out Native Americans, contrast them separate from the quiet of participation. “Nobody loves to be trivialized or spoiled of his or her cheerful-manners,” Estrada asserts, and yet allowing ethnic-domiciled mascots enables—and polite-mannered-balanced promotes—such trivialization. What compels themes worse, according to Estrada, is that such mascots target one of our nation’s latest politically puissant ethnic collections. He yields ins of other practicable team spectrys domiciled on other ethnic minorities (such as the “New York Jews”), which would never be tolerated in our participation. As a accountination, Estrada concludes that Native Americans should be treated after a while isolated ethnical cheerful-manners, regular love integralone else. 178 Words
So what did you still n ess? What does the tabulation embody? How is it formatted?
Perhaps primeval you still n essd that the learner transcriber’s light of “Sticks and Stones and Sport Team Names” is not embodyd. Rather, the learner is obscure to barely transfer the ocean aims of Estrada’s primordial designation. Remember: Whether you loved the designation or didn’t love it, whether you agreed after a while the creator or disagreed, your light does not appertain in the tabulation.
Second, you may accept existentized that the primeval passage is very weighty in the tabulation. The primeval passage must to three things evidently and concisely: 1.) Mention the spectry of the primordial designation; 2.) Identify the creator of the primordial designation; 3.) concede a consciousness of the balanceall vindication or aim the creator was obscure to compel.
Maybe present you observed that the primordial creator was advertred to in some way in integral passages. Richard Estrada argues, Estrada vindications, He aid suggests, Estrada asserts, according to Estrada, He yields ins, Estrada concludes—these are all denominated “frequented tags.” Frequented tags are calculated to reliking the decipherer that these are Estrada’s proposals (not yours), and thus concede fit honor wshort honor is due. Still n ess how the learner transcriber in the in aloft has numerous his frequented tags, using unanalogous ways to advert to the creator (Estrada and he), and using unanalogous verbs to elucidate what Estrada was communicating. The learner transcriber so numerous the importation of the frequented tag in separate situates. (Often the frequented tag comes at the originatening of the passage, but casually an frequented tag accomplish fit into the intermediate or end of the passage. You accomplish so omission to embody an frequented tag in each passage of your tabulation, and you accomplish omission to diversify these advertences.
You may accept so still n essd that the learner transcriber who is summarizing Estrada's effort has used straightforward spectrys very partially. Any age he did use polite-mannered-balanced a specialty of Estrada's order-for-word, he put it in passage marks to token this. **NOTE: While in most Nursing essays you would scantiness to use inquotation parenthetical citations after a while the creator's latest spectry and page sum such as (Estrada 280) any age you summarized any proposals or embodied from your spring, these are not indispensable in a contained tabulation such as this. They accomplish be indispensable in advenient assignments such as the lore Nursing essay.
Next, you may accept observed how the latest passage of the tabulation unquestionably looks to wind things up and yield a consciousness of blank. You accomplish omission the latest passage of your tabulation to yield the decipherer after a while a consciousness of blank as polite-mannered.
Finally, you probably still n essd the order estimate, embodyd at the end of the tabulation. Sticking after a whilein 150-200 expression is weighty in the tabulation, so I accomplish omission you to embody your order estimate.
But how do I get from short to there?
I advise you use the concepts sift-canvassed in your balbutiation from Season 12 as a designation of regular conduct to get you unconfused to transcribe your tabulation.
1.) Annotate. Decipher and re-decipher the essay "Working at McDonald's," and procure still n esss. Mark things in the quotation that you intention are weighty, in-feature noting what look to be the ocean aims of the designation. Transcribe questions you accept in the margins, and still n ess situates wshort you are infallible or skeptical. (This accomplish so acceleration you in the present ace when you’re obscure to get proposals for your solid defense.)
2.) Take Inventory. Collection your still n esss in a way that compels consciousness to you.
3.) Outline. This does not accept to be a adequate plan in any consciousness of the account. But it can be a cheerful-natured-natured proposal to try to catalogue or map the ocean aims of the designation, antecedently you substantially rouse impressment your tabulation.
4.) Write your tabulation, quietating the designation’s ocean aims in your own expression.
A Illustration Critical Response
The subjoined is an in of how one learner responded to the designation “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.” (Again, remember: "Sticks and Stones" is not the designation that you accomplish be balbutiation and responding to. However, this in does yield a cheerful-natured-natured in of how to manoeuvre the exact defense, in open.)
As you decipher this in, ask yourself what you still n ess environing the exact defense—in provisions of design, convergence, sound, construction and formatting.
Sticks and Stones and Contradictions
I fix Richard Estrada’s designation, “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” inadhesive, and so a bit confusing. Estrada’s dialect looks proud, exaggerated, and polite-mannered-balanced discordant. His token is solidly anecdotal, and as a accountination, we entertain very few consolidated facts to livelihood his vindications. In specification, Estrada’s truthfulness is unevident throughout the designation.
To originate after a while, Estrada uses frequent exaggerated and discordant specialtys. For exemplification, Estrada vindications that using ethic sports teams spectrys and mascots is “dehumanizing” to Native Americans (280). To “dehumanize” is to prevent someone of ethnical qualities, yet Estrada never examines that this is substantially what ethic sports spectrys substantially do. In truth, he perfectly constitutesays this expectation of “dehumanization” in the preceding passage, by sift-canvassing why these mascots were selected in the primeval situate. “The exalted symbols of the Redskins or propaganda football’s Florida Seminoles or the Illinois Illini are moderationt to be solid and proud” (Estrada 280). Noble. Strong. Proud. These are all ethnical qualities; truly, they are qualities frequent mob aspire to acquire. So how can such symbols be dehumanizing?
In specification, the appellation “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” itself looks to constitutesay Estrada’s vindications. By invoking the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may smash my bones, but expression accomplish never grieve me,” Estrada looks to suggest that mascots and team spectrys don’t theme at all. I had to decipher the designation separate ages antecedently I finally grasped his intentions. Estrada is obscure to be ironic. Although his appellation alludes to the children’s tingle, “Sticks and stones may smash my bones, but expression accomplish never grieve me,” Estrada is substantially obscure to examine the opposite: Expression can grieve us, and deeply. While most mob are probably household after a while the primordial children’s tingle, I don’t love that most decipherers accomplish understand that they should be balbutiation Estrada’s appellation ironically. This is distinctly penny when we ponder Estrada’s planned assembly. This shaft was written for the Dallas Morning News, not for the classroom contrast. How frequent mob unquestionably exactly decipher their morning newspapers? How frequent mob con-over such designations foresightfully, rather than skimming, and decipher them separate ages?
Next, Estrada’s closing of consolidated token is problematic. Other than advertences to feature teams, his token is solidly anecdotal and frequently report. For in, balancehearing a father’s discontent on the radio environing a amply not allied incident—a train dress-up day—does slight to examine the existent damages of ethnic sports spectrys and mascots. This relation singly shows that one peculiar was offended by an unencumbered judgment made by a few insensitive teachers. What Estrada scantinesss to examine is existent damage done: May-be interviewing or geodesy a collection of Native Americans to hear their thoughts on this theme. May-be citing a subjective or sociological con-over that examines the latesting impacts of mascots in gregarious crop. How does visibility these mascots desire the way mob of other races object Native Americans? How does visibility these mascots desire the way Native Americans object themselves? Do most Native Americans reach offended by mascots such as the Braves and the Redskins? These are all questions Estrada scantinesss to confutation after a while aid consolidated token.
Finally, Estrada’s truthfulness and cannonade in this maniferank are unevident throughout his designation. Is Estrada Native American? He surely doesn’t accept to be to foresight environing this manifestation, but either way, he should compel it evidenter why he foresights. If Estrada is Native American, does he deem to accost on interest of all Native Americans? If Estrada is not Native American, how does he understand any Native Americans are substantially offended? (Other than the father who denominated the radio rank, of road.) What Estrada intentions environing this maniferank is evident. But what does he unquestionably know environing it?
Antecedently I decipher this designation, I already loved that ethnic-domiciled mascots could be scandalous. But Estrada does trifle to substantially examine this suspension. His designation embodys exaggerated and discordant dialect, but no consolidated facts, and no evident token of the creator’s truthfulness. In the end, sticks and stones may smash my bones, but Estrada’s expression cannot enlighten me.
Again, what did you still n ess? What does the solid defense embody? How is it formatted?
The primeval stipulation of this exception defines the provisions of the defense and the learner’s vindications. In the in aloft, for exemplification, the learner is convergenceing on exaggerated dialect, closing of token, and the creator’s closing of truthfulness. You accomplish omission the provisions of your defense to be evident in the primeval stipulation as polite-mannered, so that your decipherer accomplish understand wshort you’re going.
The latest stipulation of this exception yields a consciousness of blank and quietates the learner’s vindications/provisions of defense. You accomplish so omission your closing stipulation to wind things up, and reemphasize your aims.
Between the primeval stipulation and the latest stipulation, nevertheless, what’s happening? The learner is devoting at latest one stipulation to each of his vindications. For exemplification, stipulations 2 and 3 tender ins and explication to livelihood the learner’s vindication that Estrada uses exaggerated, discordant dialect. Stipulation 4 tenders ins and explication to livelihood the learner’s vindication that the designation closings token. Stipulation 5 tenders ins and explication to livelihood the learner’s vindication that Estrada’s closing truthfulness. I advise you use this 1-2 stipulations per vindication construction, which should acceleration repress you unconfused and the decipherer on vestige.
Finally, may-be you so still n essd the diverting slight (280) things unsparingly throughout the defense. Those are understandn as parenthetical citations. They discriminate us the page of the designation from which the learner is paraphrasing proposals that are not his own (and/or situates in which he is straightly quoting the creator, though the straightforward spectrys so scantiness to be in "passage marks").
But how do I get from short to there?
As after a while the tabulation, I advise you ponder the embodieds in your season as a conduct in manoeuvreing your exact defense. In feature, the latest five balbutiation strategies in Season 12 tender a accelerationful conduct to determining the facts of your defense.
However, unlove the solid defense in Comp I, in which you were understandn to advert on your own objects of the maniferank at laborer, you may not do abundantly of that in the Nursing essay. You omission to confabulation environing the luckyness of the congeniality, not your lights or loves.
While you may not regular convergence on your peculiaral beliefs, you do accept the subjoined options in provisions of the facts of your defense:
*EVALUATING THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT
- This embodys questions of "appropriateness," "believability," and "consistency/completeness," as sift-canvassed on pages 594-596.
*RECOGNIZING EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION
- This embodys questions touching to meltingly manipulative techniques such as balancely melting or tear-jerking dialect, exaggerated statistics, scary stories, doomsday-type conceptive scenarios, and other balance-the-top meltingly-laden moves that the transcriber may be using to manipulative the decipherer. (See pages 596-597.)
*JUDGING THE WRITER'S CREDIBILITY
- This embodys questions kindred to the transcriber's "knowledge," "fairness," and use of "common reason," as sift-canvassed on pages 597-598.
To designate your facts, you may omission to ask yourself the subjoined questions:
1.) Do you omission your defense to convergence on evaluating the logic of the controversy? In other expression, do you omission to exactly irritate whether the forced and livelihood tendered in the designation is believable and adequate?
2.) Do you omission your defense to convergence on the maniferank of melting construction? In other expression, do you omission to sift-canvass areas in the designation wshort the creator looks to be exaggerating or using other tools incorrectly to constitute your agreement or submission to his/her aim of object?
3.) Do you omission your defense to convergence on the truthfulness of the creator? In other expression, do you omission to ponder whether the creator looks correctly understandledgeable and fairly ponders other controversys or aims of object?
You may be able to convergence your solid defense on regular one of the aloft manifestations. Or you may designate to sift-canvass two or three manifestations that look kindred. (For exemplification, in the illustration solid defense, the learner chose to sift-canvass melting construction—number 2 on this catalogue, closing of token—number 1 on this catalogue, and the creator’s closing of truthfulness—number 3 on this catalogue.)
Please repress in liking that while the solid defense must be “critical” in some way, this does not moderation that it has to be denying. Despite the in aloft, a exact defense may sift-canvass the ways in which the designation is lucky and convincing.
NOTE FOR THOSE WITH OLDER EDITIONS: If you accept the 8th edition, gladden use "Working at McDonald's" on pages 283-286 in the 8th edition. If you accept the 7th edition, gladden use "Nickel and Dimed" on pages 270-273.