The questions that James and Yoann raised in class this morning were, as always, relevant and worth some discussion time. Their supporting reasons were also thoughtful and clearly stated.
As the example paragraph in Quest shows, it is certainly possible to write a one paragraph answer to the question: What can be done about the problem of drug addiction? (p. 227) However, the same proposition can also be supported in an essay.
The incomplete essay I've just written to support the same proposition as the paragraph on page 227 is at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc39t2qs_417dqfpdcdc .
Which do you think gives stronger support for the proposition, the paragraph or the essay? Which is more persuasive?
If you really wanted to persuade others to your proposition, which would you use, the paragraph or the essay?
James's thesis statement, number 11 on the list, is strong because he is clearly going to give three different supporting reasons for his proposition. Each reason needs to be stated, explained and developed enough to make clear how it supports his proposition. James could do that in one paragraph, or he could write an essay. Which do you think would be the better choice? Why?
I think the way his his proposition is written now might be a problem, as Sweet suggested, but it certainly seems good enough for him to start writing his essay. He might decide later, perhaps when he reviews his essay, that it would be a good idea to revise the thesis statement. Such revision is normal: you don't always know in advance how your essay will turn out, or what you will end up being able to support, so a final thesis statement is often quite different to the one that the essay started with. Your thesis statement is provisional until you have finished revising your essay.
Even if you only have one supporting reason (hopefully a very strong one), for your proposition, why might it be better to write an essay than a paragraph? If you disagree, as Yoann and Soojin did, why might a paragraph be a better choice than an essay?
Why do people usually write essays instead of paragraphs?
Since you don't have much else to do this evening, please read the linked essay and list of thesis statements, think about the questions here, and share your ideas in a comment.
If you would like to disagree with me, that's fine. (Don't worry - I will support my opinion.)
Actually, i understand both ideas and i agree with Peter that it should be more strong if we write about only one solution with many supporting paragraphs. In some written exam such as TOEFL for those kind of questions, I think it'll be fine to answer by explaining many solution with only one paragraph per solution because in those sort of exam we have only 30 minute to write and don't have to do any research for backup our opinion. However, for written assignment that you have a week to prepare, each solution need strong supporting reasons, more than one reason properly. So, only one solution might be enought for our essay, unless you need to write one chapter with more than 10 pages like Levitt did.
ReplyDeleteAnother point, with respect, i still think that in my question it should be focus more on the supporting reasons whether the government should intervene the right of their citizen or should not than the mean that should be used. Let's think in another way; if someone answer that government should not intervene smoking, so they have to give supporting reasons why the government should not intervene and don't have to think about the solution. If other people choose to answer that smoking should be intervened by the government, they have to find stronger reasons to answer this. So ,for this question "Should the government should intervene smoking", the questioner doesn't need the best solution or best intervention for government but he needs supporting reasons why you answer yes or not. Because if they require the solution for intervention, that means the questioner already took side agreeing with government's intervention and there are many arguable issues about citizen right ,freedom or liberty in democracy, harmless to others ,to be discussed.
Actually, with respect , from Peter's under-developed essay, though i don't know the question, but i think if the question is "What is the best solution for drug abuse", your supporting reasons may not supporting the answer that legalized sales of drug should be the best solution because almost reasons supporting the main idea that why sales of drug should be legalized but they don't show us that how legalizing drug sale can help to curb drug problems. I think if we have to support that legalizing should be the best solution, we give many paragraphs, not just only one, showing reasons why it can reduce drug problems. Moreover, in contrast, if you want to answer that drug should be still illegal, should you explain which solution is the most effective for goverment.
James,
ReplyDeleteThe question is the one in Quest: "What is one solution to the problem of drug addiction?" (p.227)
It doesn't ask what is the best solution, although obviously the essay argues that legalisation is better than criminalisation.
Are you persuaded yet?
Why not? Which of my supporting reasons is wrong, or what is the stronger opposing argument? (I haven't finally dealt yet with the idea that legalisation will lead to an increase in drug addicts, but I'm pretty sure I have the supporting facts and statistics to show that.)
In the list of 18 provisional thesis statements number 6. also answers the same question in Quest that James has chosen to answer.
ReplyDelete"Should the government be involved in the campaign to stop smoking?" (p. 224)
The answer in thesis statement 6. is the proposition: "[It] must not ban smoking in restaurants or on any other private property."
This has narrowed the answer to one part of the campaign to stop smoking, rather than attempting to give a very general answer that covers every possibility.
In my chat with Yoann, I realised that one thing that is important to be clear about is what the questions do not ask you to do.
ReplyDeleteNone of the questions ask you to explain why there is a problem, or to analyse the problem. That sort of answer would be for very different questions.
All of the questions assume that the problem exists, and ask you to propose a solution, not to explain why there is a problem.
Any supporting reason that was about what the drug problem is, or why there is a problem, would need to clearly show how that sort of reason supports your specific proposal. The questions all ask you for a proposition, not an explanation or analysis of the problems caused by drugs, alcohol or tobacco.
For example, the well known fact that cigarettes cause lung cancer is not obviously relevant support to an answer to any of the questions. If the question were "Why are cigarettes a public health issue?" or "Why must we worry about cigarette smoking?", then the facts that show it to be unhealthy would seem relevant, but none of the questions in Quest ask you to show that there is a problem.
However, you might find such facts very useful in your essay. Where? Why?
But it would be very hard to relevantly fit such facts into a one paragraph answer. Why?
It's OK. If the question is that you said. However, for my chosen question,"Should the government be involved in the campaign to stop people from smoking?", I prefer the statement at example No.5 on page 225,"The government should not have the power to interfere with a person's decision to smoke or not", which tell readers that they will discus about the government power against people rights. Because the question is broad, if you answer in very specific way, it seems like you are avoiding to answer directly or trying to be considerate by not giving the answer that hurt listener. Like when someone ask you "do you agree with the police's crackdown" and you answer "They shouldn't use tear guns or tear grenades". That may mean you disagree or mean you agree but safe method must be used or mean you won't take any side but try to be considerate for the questioner who may be a PAD supporters.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I understand your idea to specify the answer though it is a broad question because you can strengthen your reason easily if your scope of answer is limited and sometimes you may not 100% agree or disagree with the whole broad idea. Despite that , I think it should be made clear that which side was taken. So if the questioners ask the broad question, they need your ultimate answer weighted by pros and cons already.
I've just completed my first draft. If you like, you can read it at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc39t2qs_420mrbx58d4
ReplyDeleteYour disagreement is welcome.