A couple people have reported not receiving a magazine this week. I'll look into that, but until then if you don't have a magazine you'll need to access the Dresden piece online. You need to register from the main New Yorker page (click on "registration" then follow the instructions). Let me know if you have problems.
1) Read the first part of Ch. 4, up to Page 114, and take notes in your journal on what you read. Except for the section on conciliation, the material should review and solidify what we talked about in class on Thursday.
2) Read George Packer's piece on Dresden from this week's New Yorker; in the magazine, or her online (you'll need to set up your digital account first): http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2010-02-01#folio=032
3) In your journal, write a page explaining any analogies or arguments about cause that you see Packer using.
Might be interesting for you to check out Packer's blog:
He has photos of Dresden and the military history museum he discusses in the article that might help you visualize what he's talking about (scroll down through the State of the Union entries).
This might help explain a bit more who John Maynard Keynes is (Keynesian economics from the WSJ edit today:
Because this was a change from the assignment sheet, for Thurs. you should either:
1) Watch the State of the Union. Write a one-page analysis of the President's reasoning -- did you hear any inductive reasoning? (hint: almost certainly). Deductive? (not certain but possible). What were his claims? Warrants?
2) Read the Declaration of Independence in the Read, Reason and Write packet. Answer the questions after it.
Here are a couple of the questions you asked in response to the Toulmin reading, and my thoughts on them.
QUESTION: Do you incorporate rebuttals in a written argumentative piece? If so, how?
MY ANSWER: I think anything you can do to anticipate disagreement and explain it only makes your argument stronger. The classic lead-in for a rebuttal is something like, "Some would say..." and then "They're mistaken, however, because..."
QUESTION: How "close to the ground" should an argument be? In other words, how many assumptions do we have to clarify, and how much further do we have to clarify those clarifications?
MY ANSWER: As much as you think your audience wants/requires. If you get too far into the details, you'll lose people. Stay too broad, and people won't be persuaded. The art of writing an argument is effectively gauging where those lines are for your audience and your purpose.
QUESTION: How does a writer/speaker use irony effectively?
MY ANSWER: Very carefully. When it crosses into sarcasm is when readers will start to get angry with you for being mean. Susan Orlean is a master of irony -- "Silly Billy was of the opinion that all clowns are fungible." The formal diction collides with the subject matter -- verbal irony. How do you use it effectively? Practice, and read a lot. A lot of folks have mentioned this as an issue, and I'll try to focus energy on it as we go through the rest of the year.
QUESTION: Is there a less rigid way to organize an argument that accommodates writing style/voice?
MY ANSWER: Excellent question. None of what you're reading should be taken as prescriptive, in the sense that you should say: "Every argument should have a claim and evidence, so I need to write them in that order, every time." It's more a way of analyzing the effectiveness of an argument than a prescription for writing one. Every effective argument has a point (a claim) and evidence supporting it. They use inductive or deductive logic. And the better ones do it all with a sense of style and voice.
I don't usually blog here about things not specifically related to class, but I had some thoughts on the election banging around in my head I thought I'd put down on paper. Or screen. Whatever the modern equivalent is. Maybe we can talk about them a bit next week as we get into argumentative writing. Click "read more" below if you, you know, want to read more.
Read George Packer's short piece on Haiti in the Talk of the Town section of the New Yorker. On a separate sheet of paper, answer these questions in a page or two: What is Packer's ultimate argument? How is it constructed? Do you agree?
Once you've done the post below, read the samples the College Board provides:
(It's question #2 from 2006 at this page if it's easier: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/exam/exam_questions/2001.html)
Do the sample essays and the scoring guide support your reading of the passage? Does it change the way you read it? Why/why not?
Ok, sorry I wasn't as clear about the homework as I could have been today. The debate about how to read the Hazlitt piece threw me for a loop. Here's part one: post here your answer to these questions -- was the "Want of Money" piece meant as a criticism of greed? Or a defense of it? What's your evidence?
Do this post first.
UPDATE 1/23: Here's a link to the passage if it helps. It's Question 2, from 2006: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/_ap06_frq_englishlang_51616.pdf