Brandon king the american dream summary

Paper 3: Entering a Conversation and Making an Argument, 1000-1250 words, 125 points (12.5% of final grade)

Choose one of the sets of essays from They Say, I Say listed below. Summarize both of the arguments (“they say”), explain how the authors agree and disagree, and craft your own well-argued response (not just free-flowing opinion) to the issues the two essays raise (“I say”). Make sure you include a naysayer to show possible objections to your argument, and address the “so what?” factor: why does this issue matter?

CHARLES MURRAY, “Are Too Many People Going to College?”

SANFORD J. UNGAR, “The New Liberal Arts”

PAUL KRUGMAN, “Confronting Inequality”

BRANDON KING, “The American Dream: Dead, Alive, or on Hold”

SHERYL SANDBERG, “Lean In: What Would You Do If You Weren’t Afraid?”

BELL HOOKS​, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In”

In addition to the general writing criteria that is applicable to all of the papers in this course (introduction and conclusions, focus, audience, thesis, organization, development, language, grammar and mechanics, proper citation of outside references), this paper will be graded on the following criteria:

• The ability to summarize both arguments accurately and fairly;

• The ability to synthesize the two arguments. How are they similar? How are they different?

• The ability to enter a conversation with a clear, coherent and well-supported argument of one’s own.

■ Your task: summarize two arguments fairly and accurately, synthesize the two arguments (that is, show where they overlap and where they diverge), and, finally, respond with your own opinion.

■ Your essay might look something like this:

o Introduction (in which you introduce the topic, its relevance).

o Summary of Essay One

O Summary of Essay Two.

o Synthesis of two essays (where do they align? Where do they differ?)

o Your opinion.

■ For example:

o Introduction: paragraph about obesity epidemic, tying it to junkfood.(purpose of this paragraph would be to establish relevance of topic).

o Summary of “The extraordinary science…” focusing especially on how food companies strive to make their food addictive.

o Summary of “It’s Your Business…” focusing especially on how the author ties the issue to matters of personal freedom/responsibility.

o Synthesis of two writers: both writers agree that we have an obesity epidemic, in part, because of what we eat. But the writers differ on what we should do about it.

o Three paragraphs about why I think food companies are responsible for making their products addictive and should be regulated accordingly:

▪ Though the issue is, in part, one of personal responsibility, this ignores the role food companies have in making their products addictive (tie to cigarettes or, hey, heroin).

▪ Because the largest food companies are massively profitable and have an enormous number of resources at their disposable. The average consumer is busy, poor, and distracted.

▪ Because food companies, as the article demonstrates, are aware of their role in the epidemic, but choose not to do anything about it (tie to idea of social responsibility).

o Conclusion

■ Things to note: quote relevant passages of texts when responding.

■ Keep the naysayer on your shoulder throughout and argue with/make concessions with that imaginary person.

■ Some other thoughts on reading and responding:

o As you read your texts, annotate them (Chapter 7 of SMG has much to say about this). Underline or highlight arguments you dis/agree with, and mark any passages that will be useful as you write your own piece.

▪ Note any objections you have to the piece as you read it.

o As you argue, consider rhetorical appeals:

▪ Ethical, logical, emotional.

• All can be used to argue conscientiously, all can be used to dissemble.

• Look for these appeals in the texts you read, and consider how the author uses them.

▪ Avoid fallacies (and look for them in the arguments of others).

• Page 150

▪ Let’s look at a few arguments quickly.

▪ Political ads plus speech.

• Bernie Sanders

• Lyndon Johnson

• Missouri Senate

• Phil Davison

▪ What rhetorical appeals does each arguer use?