Untitled 2

Paper Three

CRTW 201

Dr. Fike

Paper Three: Researched Essay

This paper assignment connects not only with Wilson's The Future of Life but also, probably, with Nosich's chapter 3 (on thinking in a discipline) and, possibly, with a point of view that arises from your major and that informed your group presentation. In fact, what you will say about your chapter in Wilson may help you zero in on a topic. Reading Wilson's whole book is not necessary to getting started. Read the index that starts on page 221. Read your group's assigned chapter. Doing these two things provides a quick way of identifying a topic.

Preamble

You will work on your research paper while we are discussing Wilson's book. Accordingly, you will pick something that he mentions--most likely an environmental topic--and write your paper about a focused topic within it. Does something intrigue you? Do you agree or disagree with something? Did Wilson get you thinking in a whole new direction? These are the kinds of questions that can steer you toward a suitable topic. Even if you choose something other than one of Wilson's topics, you still have to have a connection to TFOL.

Whatever your topic may be, it is a very good idea to run your focused topic by me (preferably in writing). It is best to pick a Wilson-related topic. If that does not work for you, pick a topic within the paranormal, an area of inquiry that I know works well because I have used it before for this assignment. At the end of this assignment sheet, you will find some guidelines for this alternative.

The Assignment

You will write a classical argument supported by a minimum of five sources plus Wilson and Nosich. This time, in other words, your paper will look at the opposition/objections and will use research to support various parts of your paper. You should use mostly peer-reviewed sources. I do not want you using only electronic sources; at least one of them must be a book other than Wilson's or Nosich's. Do not just Google a bunch of sources and, for heaven's sake, do not use Wikipedia! A dictionary definition does not count as one of your sources. Since you are writing this paper within a discipline, find out about authoritative sources within that discipline and consult them.

As with your first two papers, you must focus your topic. My colleague Dr. Koster emphasizes the importance of focus in this engaging comment: "Narrowing your topic will be key. 'We need to develop renewable sources of energy' is going to be too vague and broad for your paper; 'We need to put windmills on the Winthrop campus to power the blue security lights' is probably too narrow. But you'll need to be closer to the windmills thesis than to the vague thesis to make your paper successful." You know me, though: I always want you to say more about less (what WA calls "10 on 1"). I would love a paper about windmills on the WU campus or about angus beef hamburgers at the Johnson dining hall or solar panels on WU rooftops or recycling in the residence halls. Make sure that your paper is narrow and that it proposes something constructive, something useful.

Here is a list of focused topics that worked well for previous students: the giant panda, pollution of the Haihe River, turning the university's front lawn into a parking lot, light pollution, making the Thompson cafeteria all-vegetarian, cane toads, the Vancouver Island marmot, damming the Mekong River, the kissing bug (Triatoma protracta), toucans in the Amazon rainforest, recycling at Winthrop, the Hawksbill turtle in SC, Japan's overharvesting of dolphins, exotic animals on the loose in Ohio, the purchase price of land in the Amazon rainforest, alternative energy at Winthrop, what to do about overpopulation in the United States, lights at Winthrop, pet therapy in nursing homes, the Sumatran rhino, Hydrilla Verticillata in Lake Wylie, and light sensors at Winthrop, giant pandas, kudzu, the Venus Project, electric cars, the Yangtze River drainage, the Xiaowan dam, the Hawksbill sea turtle, overpopulation in the US, vehicle emissions inspections, deforestation of frontier forests in South America, alternative fuel lawn equipment at Winthrop, the Catawba River, the Yucca Mountain facility for storing nuclear waste, shahtoosh shawls, GMOs, the Florida Everglades, fracking, Monsanto's patented seeds, liberty gardens, deforestation in the Sarawak rain forest of Eastern Asia, abandoned lots in downtown Rock Hill, organic food at the Thomson Cafeteria, biophilia at the psych ward of Piedmont Hospital, the fennec fox, subsistence fishing, houses made out of bales of straw.

A Preliminary Step

I strongly suggest that you submit to me (in hardcopy please; and put your e-mail address on it) a 1-page proposal that includes as many of the following items as possible:

Your connection to Wilson (if you are working on an environmental topic).
Your area of inquiry, topic, focus, and Q @ I.
The sort of disciplinary assumptions and concepts that relate to your Q @ I (Nosich, ch. 3 is highly relevant here).
Some idea of what you might like to advocate (i.e., say something that looks ahead to a thesis; and if you already have a thesis, then by all means tell me what it is).
Your paper's audience (ask yourself who can effect the solution that you want to propose).
A preliminary annotated bibliography (you have to use 5 sources minimum, so it is a good idea to have more than that at this stage). Be sure to use MLA format and to write in complete sentences. Annotations answer these questions:
- What is your source about? (information)
- Why do you think it is credible? (evaluation)
- How will it help you? (strategy)

Note: I am not REQUIRING a proposal, but I have a suggested due date on the calendar. I hope that you are wise enough to follow my suggestion that you will run your work in progress by me. It would really be terrible if you got off on the wrong track. It is your choice, though. Some students in previous sections of the class ended up writing papers that did not take the form of a classical argument or include elements, standards, or traits. CRTW 201 is a course in the elements, standards, and traits of critical thinking.

Thesis

This time your thesis is going to take a controversial stand on something that needs to be done. So your thesis will answer a Q @ I such as the following: What should be done about the use of ivory from the Sumatran rhino to make ceremonial knives? Your thesis will then give an answer in three parts: Although + your opposition, I will use the knife issue to argue that some specific policy/action/etc. needs to be taken to protect the Sumatran rhino because + something that anticipates one of your arguments. But you do not have to follow the lead of this example and come up with an environmentally friendly suggestion. The purpose of this assignment is to get you to practice critical thinking in an environmental context, not to turn you into junior Wilsons. Your paper does not have to be pro-environment. In any case, have the acuity to realize that knives and rhinos do not belong in your thesis if you are not focusing your whole paper on them. Note: "the knife issue" and the Sumatran rhino are examples. They do not belong in everyone's thesis statement.

Outline

The paper will follow the organization of the classical argument. There are links to descriptions of that format on our course home page, and my "How To" slide show suggests ways of integrating the elements into the classical argument. Here, then, is the basic shape of your paper:

Introduction: Q @ I + thesis. It should state that you are proposing some policy, program, initiative, law, etc. in response to an environmental problem (the focused topic).
Background 1: FBIs, context, point of view. What is the nature of your own interest in the focused topic? Is your major relevant?
Background 2: Give an analytical summary. Present your focused topic by putting it through all 8+ elements of critical thinking, as you did your ad in paper 2. At the end of the section, introduce your proposal.
Argument: Make your pitch for your policy, keeping in mind especially positive implications, consequences, and outcomes. Use the standards. This is where you argue for the proposal you make in the thesis. Arguments support the thesis.
Objection: Consider especially alternatives, other points of view, and negative consequences. Use the standards. Objections object to arguments.
Reply: Counter those objections in a convincing way that does not just repeat the argument. Use the standards. Replies reply to objections in order to support the arguments and the thesis.
Conclusion: State your conclusions, interpretations, decisions, recommendations. Make a connection to some of the critical thinking traits of mind in Nosich, chapter 5.

Remember: CRTW is a course in the elements and the standards of critical thinking. I have not listed all the elements or any of the standards in this outline, but you should know by now that you need to use Nosich's vocabulary as much as possible in your prewriting and in your papers. You ARE required to use the 8+ elements and at least 3 of the standards in your paper.

Requirements:

The paper should be 7-9 pages in length plus a list of works cited. Under no circumstances should you turn in a paper fewer than 7 or more than 9 full pages of text.
Deploy the elements and the standards of critical thinking throughout your classical argument as needed.
Boldface the name of each element or standard or trait the first time you use it in the body of your paper. I expect you to use all 8+ elements in your paper and at least 3 standards. I also expect you to mention one or more of the traits of mind. Please also boldface your topic sentences in the body. Do not boldface anything in the introduction or conclusion.
Incorporate at least one quotation from Nosich (probably from ch. 3) and at least one quotation from Wilson.
Incorporate support from at least five reputable sources. At least one should be a book; e-books are books, though I would prefer that your book be a non-electronic source. Wilson and Nosich do not count toward the five sources; however, you have to incorporate both of our authors into your paper. Therefore, the minimum number of sources is seven.
Label your paper's sections as follows: introduction, background 1, background 2, argument, objection, reply, conclusion.
Number your paragraphs.
Lower-order correctness is very important and will have an impact on your grade.
Properly use the MLA format (signal phrases, citations, works cited list) for all sources that you use.
Incorporate at least one SEE-I in your paper. More would be better.
You must submit your paper to turnitin.com in order to receive credit.

Alternative Topic

Nosich, in his philosophic arrogance, makes disparaging statements about the paranormal at several places in his book. He is even ignorant of his own ignorance. Like him, very few of you have ever thought about the paranormal, much less psychic functioning, but you probably have strong opinions about it. That is why this assignment offers a terrific opportunity to develop a position and to think about your thinking. It should appeal especially to those of you who prefer fact-based thinking.

If you want to pursue a paranormal topic instead of an environmental one, you must consult with me, preferably early on, to get my approval of your proposed project. Keep in mind the following example of how I break things down:

Area of inquiry: the paranormal
Topic: remote viewing
Focus: Joe McMoneagle's viewing of a Soviet submarine
Q @ I: Should the Stargate program have been terminated?
Thesis: your answer to the Q @ I in terms of the focus you have chosen

Feedback from Spring 2012

MLA Format

· Do not put URLs in citations or on the works cited list. In citations, do not put a comma between an author's name and the page number.

· Do not put an author’s name in a signal phrase and a citation, just in one or the other.

· Do not put citations within quotations. Set off quotations of 4 lines or more.

· Do not indent the first line of a WC entry.

· Do not put the page numbers of material cited from Wilson on the WC list.

· Do not italicize the title of an article.

· Do not put extra space between entries on the WC list. Double space everything on the WC page.

· Do not change fonts when constructing the WC list.

· Do not include words like books, press, publisher, and inc. in WC entries.

· Do not use bullet points on the WC list or number your entries.

· Do not indent the first line of each entry. Do indent all subsequent lines.

· Do not organize your entries randomly; use alphabetical order.

· Italicize book titles. But do not italicize a book title within another book title.

· Abbreviate all months except May, June, and July. Example: 2 Feb. 2012.

· Put periods and commas inside closing quotation marks.

· Alphabetize your sources by authors’ last names.

· Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for a research paper.

· Cite the sources you list; list the sources you cite.

Omissions

Omission of Nosich, even though he appeared on the WC list.
Omission of SEE-I, the elements, the standards, and the traits of mind.
Omission of paragraph and page numbers.
Omission of the classical argument.
Omission of any reference to sources on the WC list.

Lower-order Matters

· Use a comma before a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses.

· Do not use contractions or second person (“you”).

· Do not justify the right margin or use a font other than Courier New 12-point.

· Use “that” after verbs of cognition (e.g., I believe that something is the case).

· You may say the following: in regard to, as regards, and regarding. You may not say “in regards to.” The “s” is incorrect.

· Use “this” not more than once per paragraph. Put a noun after it.

· Focused topic or focus, not focus topic.

· Hyphens (-) are not dashes (—).

Substantive Problems

· Taking on too many topics.

· Not following the thesis format in the assignment sheet.

· Following the format but having an “although” clause that is not a true opposition.

· Not making a specific proposal about a focused topic.

· Making a specific proposal but not supporting it in the argument/objection/reply sections.

· Do not start a paragraph with a quotation or a fact. A par. must be at least 5 sentences.

Feedback from Spring 2013

Section of the paper	Do these things	Do not do these things
Introduction	Give a thesis that follows the formula in the assignment sheet. It is okay to state the Q@I for the paper. Make sure that you make a specific proposal about a focused topic.	Forget to include a policy, proposal, program, law, etc. for which you will argue. It is insufficient to say that something is a good idea or that there should be more governmental involvement. Forget to write about a focused topic. Try to write about an unfocused topic.
Background 1	Discuss your own interest in the focused topic	Deploy any of the elements.
Background 2	Use the 8+ elements to analyze your focused topic (the problem that your proposal will address). Toward the end of B2, sketch the policy for which you will argue. Boldface the names of the elements.	Analyze your paper or yourself or your proposal. Boldface any of the elements except in B2.
Argument	Support the thesis statement's main clause by developing the argument in the because clause. Argue for the policy that you advocate. Use the standards to evaluate material and to advance the argument. Boldface the standards.	Set out to say that some environmental problem is bad or that some solution is good. These things are premises only.
Objection	Develop the material in the thesis statement's although clause in order to object to the previous section's arguments in favor of some policy. Use the standards to evaluate and critique. Boldface the standards.	Forget to use the standards or to object to arguments. Introduce a new proposal.
Reply	Give a little ground to the opposition (concession). Then challenge the objections in order to support your arguments for the policy (rebuttal).	Forget that the assignment is to write a classical argument in the 7 sections mapped out in the left column of this chart.
Conclusion	Use the critical thinking traits to think about the thinking that you have done in the paper as well as the thinking that your proposed policy will require and/or the thinking that caused the problem in the first place.	Forget to use the traits.

Here are a couple of examples of appropriate proposals:

Proposal: Chevrolet should produce an all-electric version of the Volt.
SC should ban smoking on SC's ocean beaches in order to protect Loggerhead sea turtles.
Note: Your paper has to be that narrow. Don't take on something like GMOs around the world. Don't write a theoretical piece on biophilia. Pick a narrowly focused environmental problem and propose a specific policy that would address it.

Feedback from Fall 2013

The grid above encapsulates many of the problems that I found in your papers. A frequent problem is that, in background 2, you did not analyze your focused topic (the problem that your proposal will address); instead you analyzed your thinking, your paper, or your proposal. Remarkably, some of you have not learned that question at issue is a question, that concepts are nouns, or that point of view is not an opinion. MLA format was not perfectly employed in anyone's paper, and some of the works cited lists were butchery (for example, your sources were numbered; they were bullet points; or they were out of alphabetical order). I even received a paper that had a full list of sources but did not cite any of them. Finally, I note zero progress in addressing lower-order issues such as the comma splice, fragment, run-on sentence, dangling modifier, wordiness, style, punctuation, subject-verb agreement, etc. In a few cases, your sentences were unreadable. You have not taken the opportunity CRTW offers to improve your actual writing; instead you just shovel material into paragraphs and hope for the best. Despite having a month to write the research paper, you left the project until the last minute and turned in rough drafts. That fact explains the low grades that most of you got.

Funny video on climate change:

http://www.upworthy.com/this-is-probably-the-funniest-most-effective-way-to-deal-with-people-who-ignore-science-facts-ever-2