https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1P_8taEIo-SLtF9Nqdw1AzC4hT-0oPzOJgmsj30ihRXM&hl=en
Sample workshop form questions. Discuss your answers in your groups:
1. Summarize, as briefly as possible, how the two articles summarized in the draft fit together. How are they in conversation? Is this connection clear in the draft, or could it be clearer?
2. Glance at the original articles on which the draft is based. Does s/he summarize these authors' arguments adequately? Does the draft highlight each article's central claim? After reading the draft, were you surprised by anything in the two articles? Why?
3. Does the draft seem to approve of one of the articles, or does it take one of the articles more seriously than the other? Is this preference justified? Does the author make this justification clear in the draft?
4. How has the author attempted to grab the reader's attention? Do you think this strategy is effective? Think back to your reaction when you read the first few sentences of the draft… did you groan or were you pulled in? Explain your answer in as much detail as possible.
After you discuss these questions, compose a list of THREE things that the author should do to improve his or her draft. Post these as a comment on this post.
1. This writer needs to proofread. There were several grammar/spelling/citation mistakes. Commas were in the wrong places, in-text citing should have been (author, page #/year book was published) rather than the title of the article, and "fininancial" is not spelled correctly.
ReplyDelete2. The paper could have been better if the writer made it more clear that the two articles were disagreeing. They agreed on the problem but not the cause and it wasn't completely evident from what the writer had said about the articles.
3. The writer could give more of his/her opinion. There was a summary of the arguments but the paper did not express how the writer felt.
- Improve his grammar: Capitalize titles, limit use of parenthesis
ReplyDelete- He is persuading more than his facts are, get better facts for your argument that help mold your ideas instead of stating your ideas
- He doesn't compare or contrast the articles, he just allows them to run parallel to each other
make articles more accessible
ReplyDeleteuses parentheses for parenthetical citation and in his writing style, makes draft confusing
Instead of giving so many facts incorporate what they mean to people in general
We feel like a link for the articles would have established credibility for those who do have a subscription. The author doesn't explain his point of the FDA's failure very well because the blog seemed like a drawn out bullet point list. The parentheses were ridiculous and oftentimes unnecessary.
ReplyDelete