My friends, sorry for maybe wasting your time
After reading Peter's comment of my work and Peter's original work, I've wondered something about summary paragraph. I emailed Peter to ask for answers of the questions. Unexpectedly, Peter suggests (indirectly forces 555) me to post the questions in order to share ideas with all of you. Hope you don't blame me to use our class blog's space. The questions are :
1. I'm not sure that the serious mistake of my whole paragraph is not clearly stated the main idea in the topic sentence, which is eating meat is morally wrong. If so,according to my paragraph, is it possible to only add some letters in my first line like this?
In Carving the Roast Beast, Stephen Law sets up a strong argument about the immorality of eating meat.
I always bear in mind about the word "about" you taught me that it is too general to be in a topic sentence because it only states a topic but not a main idea. But in my case, the line I am presenting above contains both topic and main idea, inspite of having the word "about".
So, could it be a clear topic sentence or no matter what topic sentence must be pointed out with a clause.
2. Before anything else, I love your summary. it is an effective model for teaching students how to develop and conceptualize a summary paragraph.Still, I have one question. Why you use the words "some human beings"? Is it possible to use a more specific word "impaired human"?
P.S. ten times thank for your attention and please help me out of my stupidity.
Sunday, 27 June 2010
8 comments:
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you Apple.
ReplyDeleteAs I've already said in my email reply, both questions are excellent, being exactly the sort of question that we should be thinking about when we write for academic purposes, which does not necessarily mean at university, or in an academic journal or book, as Stephen Law's essay for general readership exemplifies.
Thanks for taking up my suggestion (OK, my strong suggestion) to post them here. I'm looking forward to your classmates' responses.
Apple, my classmate, you did the right thing that asked the question by post to the blog and this is a benefit for you and also our classmate to share and exchange knowledge, so you do not worry about it, and I willingly help and encourage you as much as I can (do not vomit :P). Anyway, from my point of view, question one, using about in your writing, may not be too general, but it sounds like not clearly stated for the topic sentence. I mean I have a question about which side Law agree with. Let me show you one example which is hopefully help. I have two simple sentences that need you to compare.
ReplyDelete1. I’m handsome.
2. I’m about handsome being.
Of course, the first sentence definitely means my appearance looks good, but the second sentence, it can infer in many ideas such as I may be a fitness trainer. Therefore, the first sentence is much clearer.
For your second question, I have no answer yet, but I would like to ask question back. How many are “human beings”? Is it only “impaired human”?
Thank you p'Book. You're my sweet brother.
ReplyDeleteFor second question, I've already looked up in Law's essay again. I think there is only type of human being mentioned to compare in his essay, which is the impaired.
Anyway, maybe I miss it or there are some reasons that can explain(but my little tiny brain has no competence to figure it out)
I just wan to say I'm hansome too. ;)
ReplyDeleteI think that Book's response to the first question is on the right track (@ June 28, 2010 12:21 AM), and his explanation using examples helped a lot, as examples usually do.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the problem is that using about is too general; it's more serious than that. If you say, for example, that "Pat talked about the immorality of eating meat", this is correct, and it is equally correct that Stephen Law writes about the immorality of eating meat. Both Stephen Law and Pat are talking about exactly the same topic; we can correctly make both of the following true statements:
1. Pat sets up a strong argument about the immorality of eating meat.
2. Law sets up a strong argument about the immorality of eating meat.
But if you read Pat's response to Law on "Opposing Stephen Law: final comments", it is clear that Law and Pat have very different main ideas about exactly the same topic; their ideas are in fact directly contradictory.
The more serious problem with the sentence: " 'In Carving the Roast Beast', Stephen Law sets up a strong argument about the immorality of eating meat" is that it does not tell us anything about that argument, not even whether it is an argument for or against the immorality of eating meat. In Law's case, it is an argument for the immmorality of eating meat, but in Pat's case, it is exactly the opposite: an argument against the immorality of eating meat. It's important that the topic sentence of a summary paragraph make clear which of those contradictory main ideas is the author's main idea.
(Although I like it and found it a very useful example to explain Apple's first question, I don't necessarily agree with Pat's strong argument that eating meat is not immoral.)
And that leaves Apples even more interesting second question for you to discuss.
And I won't dispute that Tum is "hansome too".
ReplyDeleteI think it is posible to use the word "impaired humans", but it might be too specific and it could be a kind of discrimination.
ReplyDeleteAkira was right in suggesting that I thought that impaired humans was too specific. After I wrote my paragraph, as I was reviewing it, I considered changing some humans to humans who do not meet the specified criteria, which I still think would have more precisely covered all the cases that Law considers.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that only "impaired humans" would be available to be eaten. For example, in the section where he discusses social bonds, his answer to Midgely's argument would allow not only slavery, but the eating of all humans with whom we feel no such bonds, including very intelligent slaves!
Had I used the phrase impaired humans, it would have been both weaker, for not showing just how widely the opposing arguments allow us to eat other people, but also a less accurate summary since many more humans than those who are impaired could be justly eaten according to the various opposing arguments that Law addresses.