Portfolio Revision Goals

Remember that another writing instructor will be reading and grading your portfolio, and so a large part of this final revision exercise is making sure that your ideas translate to someone who doesn’t know you nor have a complete sense of the topic or discussions we have had in class.  In other words, this is an exercise in communicating your ideas to an impartial, objective reader, which means that you need to be careful to sufficiently explain all your important terms and concepts.  Remember also that as your portfolio revision has already been graded and revised at least once, they are going to be evaluated as per the Writing Program’s most rigorous grading standards.  (See the rubric in your course book, p. 129.)  

Towards preparing your final portfolio revision essay:

Start with the INTRODUCTION.
Does it set up the important concepts of the essay?
Establish a clear and manageable context for your discussion (not too broad or narrow)?
Effectively present your thesis statement?

Next examine the THESIS STATEMENT itself.
Consider what a thesis needs to do:
Answer the Question.
Present the blueprint or road map for your argument.
Remember that it is often best to answer the question in the language and logic of the prompt.

Then consider your TRANSITIONS.
First between your sentences.  Are there choppy or logically disconnected sentences?
Are the opening sentences of your paragraphs specific enough?  Do they help establish how the paragraph relates to your greater argument?
Transitional words and phrases.  There better be some of these—no essay is going to work as well as it can without proper transitional words and phrases at either the paragraph or sentence levels.

Make sure each PARAGRAPH offers the following things:
Transition from previous paragraph.
One unified topic sentence.
Supportive examples/details and warrants.  Is it clear how the supportive ideas in each paragraph refer back to your thesis and what they are contributing to your argument?

Concerning GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX
Consider your use of pronouns.  Too many pronouns can lead to vague sounding writing.  You may know what “it” is or who “he” or “she” is, but your ready often needs more precise language.  Remember that your argument will always benefit from more specific and more concrete (vs. vague) language choices.
Any overly long sentence, please READ THEM ALOUD.  This is the best way to catch awkward sounding or overly complex sentences.  If you get lost reading your own sentences, think how the reader is going to feel.
Actively work to avoid sentence fragments and run-ons.

Finally, some issues to consider with regards to your CONCLUSION
Does the conclusion simply repeat your thesis statement?  Remember that we want more than simple repetition.  Don’t add any important new ideas, but make sure your conclusions is doing or saying something different about your main claim.

Defense Department becomes a wildlife protector - latimes.com

Defense Department becomes a wildlife protector - latimes.com

Environmental success stories: On Earth Day, visit places saved by conservationists. - Slate Magazine

Environmental success stories: On Earth Day, visit places saved by conservationists. - Slate Magazine

A5 Heuristic Response

1.  At this point, you should have a list of communities we have encountered this semester and notes about how they interact--i.e. what are the occasions of their interaction and what kind of communication they engage in.  As the first part of this question, give me your lists, first of

A) the communities; and then

B) the occasions for and content of their interaction.

For example: "Social and deep ecologists engage each other in academic essays where they argue over who has the better environmental ethics"; or "in general, visitors to the many south western national parks go to interact physically and mentally, even emotionally with a frontier-oriented 'text' of the wilderness."

2.  Now consult the "Principles of Critical Reasoning" posted below and

A) what are the sound/unsound reasoning practices operating in the occasions for communication you describe above?  (Who is using mythical thinking?  Who is avoiding responsibility?  Who relies on the better experts or evidence?  Etc.)

B) now consider how these practice, good and bad, strengthen or weaken the communities that employ them.  Here you might ask what is at stake in the debate?  Who wins and who loses?  What are the real world results of these communities' interaction?  How might we improve the results of unsound practices?  

Be ready to discuss your responses in class on Friday.

Principles of Critical Reasoning for A5

Principles of Sound Critical Reasoning 

In looking for principles of sound critical reasoning related to the social issues you have studied this semester, you might want to consider the list below.  Be aware, however, that this list is not exhaustive.  These principles should not be used to structure an argument but rather to generate ideas.    

Attitude of Approach

Sound critical reasoning

…understands that social issues, by their very nature, don’t have certain answers 

    or solutions

…reflects this uncertainty by being skeptical of one’s own ideas as well as the

    ideas of others

…realizes that engaging uncertainty and practicing intellectual skepticism results

    in a more honest and objective argument 

Formation of Ideas

Sound critical reasoning

…contributes to the ongoing discussion of the issue in an original manner,

    moving beyond the superficial to put forth an entirely new perspective or 

    approach existing perspectives in new ways

…identifies credible and sufficient evidence

…refines rough ideas into conclusions proportionate to this evidence

Articulation of Argument

Sound critical reasoning

…recognizes the distinctions between ideas but also the connections that bridge

    them 

…expresses itself in language that is resonant with the complexity and nuance of

    the ideas

…displays an awareness of the audience receiving the reasoning, thereby

    presenting it in a manner that engages rather than alienates other people 

Some Examples of Unsound Critical Reasoning

In looking for examples of unsound critical reasoning related to the social issues you have studied this semester, you might want to consider the list below.  Be aware, however, that this list is not exhaustive.  These terms should not be used to structure an argument but rather to generate ideas, though the best essays will transcend these terms by bringing something original to the discussion.    

Apathy/Laziness:  unwillingness to invest in the work required for sound reasoning

Avoiding Conflict: sometimes a heated debate or discussion may appear like a tense conflict to be avoided rather than joined (e.g. consider phrases like “I don’t want to rock the boat.”)

Barriers to Entry:  if entering the conversation requires resources/qualifications/access available to only a select few (e.g. poll tax in the Jim Crow south, or running for office requiring independent wealth—Meg Whitman for Governor of California, or Michael Bloomberg for Mayor of New York)

Certainty:  approaching argument from an absolute, close-minded position that cannot take other positions into consideration

Conformity: while conformity may be somewhat reasonable (and necessary) in a social context, it can also hinder one’s ability to think beyond the boundaries of social norms and expectations

Conspiracy:  claims that require no evidence and that reject all evidence to the contrary as “part of the conspiracy” itself (e.g. 9/11 attacks were planned by George Bush, Barack Obama is not a US citizen)

Dependence on “Experts”:  wherein participants give up their agency to authorities (e.g. the Milgram electric-shock experiments in psychology; consider phrases like “I was just following orders.”)

Diffusion of Responsibility: the refusal or inability to take personal responsibility for social issues may stem from the belief that others will take care of problems

Distraction: good reasoning requires sustained attention. What distracts us? (e.g. pop culture, Facebook updates, personal life, consumerism)

Factual Discord:  it is hard for the reasoning to advance if the parties cannot agree on the same set of basic facts (i.e. hard to argue productively about what to do if there is disagreement on what is happening)

Ignoring/Deferring to Tradition:  reasoning that ignores tradition will not resonate with a public, and reasoning that is overly beholden to tradition will be static and discourage new ideas

Logical Fallacies (see pages 9-12 in the Writing 140 Course Book)

Metaphysical/Mythical Thinking:  reasoning that assigns responsibility to factors beyond the “human” (e.g. declaring Hitler evil/satanic and thus absolving us of the task of explaining Nazism as a real social phenomenon)

Naïve Romanticism: reasoning that is naively ideal cannot genuinely engage the complex realities of most social issues

Scape-goating: transferring accountability (and usually guilt) from one group or person to another, thereby obscuring the record of events pertinent to an issue and thus concealing genuine responsibility for outcomes

Self-consciousness: worries about how others perceive us can limit our engagement with social issues (e.g. being labeled a radical, flip-flopper, idealist)

Self-selection & Confirmation Bias:  the practice of only participating in the conversation through filters that you yourself select—and that tend to confirm rather than challenge preconceived ideas (e.g. understanding American social issues only through the lens of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann, FOX News or MSNBC)

Static Reasoning:  that which doesn’t adapt to new social attitudes/practices/realities (e.g. fighting the War on Terror with conventional, Cold War-era strategic thinking)

Stubbornness: engaging in critical reasoning requires one to find common ground between contrasting ideas

Ulterior Motive:  if the conversation is entered for reasons other than advancing the best answer to the issues at hand, problems can arise, e.g.:

Popularity/Profit: commercially-driven reasoning that is primarily concerned with ratings and selling advertisements

Sabotage/Corrupt:  if the goal is not to advance the discussion but rather destabilize or discredit it

Pleasure Principle: when the drive for pleasure is the chief motivating force in behavior it may affect reasoning

Undue Adherence to Data:  reasoning only concerned with raw numbers or cold instrumental analysis will be devoid of pathos and ineffective at dealing with real human issues

Industrial hazards force communities to consider relocation

Industrial hazards force communities to consider relocation

Ambitious plan would remake Yosemite National Park - latimes.com

Ambitious plan would remake Yosemite National Park - latimes.com