While analyzing argumentative essays Wednesday, I found first that not many of us had an actual argument. It was more like being for or against something that the reader would more than likely agree with. The main point that I learned was that reasons you're for or against can compliment you argument but you have to create an argument. For example, discrimination in the work place is wrong, everybody agrees but there isn't a proposed solution. The argument could be that employers should not be able to discriminate against race/ethnicity, piercings, tattoos, etc...
Writing an argumentative essay without research aspects would be very hard. I had to chose a subject where the facts of the situation didn't matter, but more of an agreeable, ethical appeal, including a proposed action. I originally wanted to write an essay that statistics would strongly back up my essay... But there wasn't really any extensive research allowed. All the while, this kind opened up my mind to use my own brain and develop my argument.
Lastly, I learned how to cross examine myself and think harder about points that could poke holes through my argument. Spencer easily picked out weak points in a matter of seconds, this let me know that I had to be extremely critical and dig for better arguments in order to accomplish the requirements for the essay. I'm going to write about how college should be free and what actions could most effectively achieve this.
No comments:
Post a Comment