Academic Writing

Reading, Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse as my first academic journal was not bad as I thought, especially since I was not Thonney`s primary audience. One factor that made it easy to  read was the structure of the journal. I like how she lists her main points, which were her six standard "moves" and mentions the topics and journals she will be analyzing along the way. Also, to emphasize her six "moves" she made them as categories in her journal. Even though this was written for scholars and college teachers, the fact that she broke it down into categories gave me a sense of direction.

Thonney uses a lot of evidence and references back to the journals she studied, which was good for her to back up her claims, but it also seemed overwhelming and confusing at times. I think the main problem for me was because I did not understand the context in her evidence examples, such as the ones for Engineering. I do give her credit for branching out her evidence and analysis on several subjects which shows how these writing techniques can be applied for many, if not all classes. Because of that, it threw me off at some sections which resulted into me having to reread it.  Once I was able to understand the concepts, I found it very informative and helpful. For example, in the move "Academic Writers Adopt a Voice of Authority",  I learned the importance and power of using first or third person and writing concisely.

In the first "move", Thonney suggests that writers respond to what others have said about the topic, which reminds me of my 11th grade English class, AP Language and Composition. In this class, we learned how to write three different types of essays and one of them was the Synthesis essay, which we were given several sources to refer to when creating our own argument. My English teacher always told me that the purpose of the sources was not to summarize them but come up with a new idea. I find it interesting how Thonney talks about the same topic. She states that "instead of analyzing, or adding what others have said, they merely show they have 'done the reading'". Personally, I always struggled with this because I always end up agreeing with an idea already stated and ended up reiterating what has already been brought to the topic. I also think its important to add more analysis and a different opinion when it comes to responding to others.

Another convention or "move" that stood out to me was the use of academic and and discipline-specific vocabulary. My past English teachers always told me to not use big words or be too professional in essays because it sometimes seems out of place so I tried not to force myself to search up synonyms or more sophisticated words. As a college student now, I think it is important to use "discipline-specific" vocabulary in essays and papers because they need to be well thought out, organized well and more mature, proficient. I like how Thonney added websites with text analysis tools for students and how important "lexical bundles" are.

Overall,  I liked reading Thonney`s academic journal. Even though it was a challenge at times, she provided good advice and suggestions to help college students write better and effective papers.

United Businesses Stand

In Noah Chomsky`s seventh principle "Engineering Elections" in Requiem for the American Dream, he claims that "corporations have personal rights, and it extended through the twentieth century, when they gradually became persons under law" (pg. 100). In this principle, Chomsky is stating that corporations have a great influence in elections and that it is essentially a way for corporations to pass laws and rulings in their favor, for them to get more money and connections. As corporations already have so much power and influence, getting into politics make them untouchable. With the use of exemplification and cause and effect analysis, Chomsky is able to support his claim with striking evidence.

Chomsky uses exemplification by noting the the Fourteenth Amendment and historical Supreme Court cases such as Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission. The fourteenth amendment defines national citizenship and protects the basic rights of citizens from states. Chomsky compares undocumented aliens and General Elections Company in order to show how the law provides protection for companies but not individuals who even though are not citizens, work hard and handle rigorous jobs. He states, "Undocumented aliens who are living here and building your buildings, cleaning your lawns, and so on, they`re not persons, but General Election is a person, an immortal, super powerful person" (pg. 98). This just shows how brainwashed our country has become to money. We would rather help corporations, who are already thriving to thrive even more, than a person who is doing everything in their ability to survive. This example makes the readers feel guilty, disappointed and other emotions that influence them to side with Chomsky. He also mentions Citizens United vs. FEC, to portray the historical background on how corporations intertwined themselves with elections. This court case ruling allows corporations "to do it (buy elections) with virtually no constraint" (pg. 99). Chomsky also brings up Kennedy, a Supreme Court judge of the case, and his reasoning. He associates CBS`s freedom of speech with General Electric`s "freedom" of money to justify his vote. Chomsky backfires this claim by mentioning how CBS is a "public service" and is completely irrelevant to others companies money. The reasoning behind the ruling of this case makes readers, like me, question the relevance and purpose of this case. Was this for the better, or worse? Chomsky exemplifies important historical aspects that affect us on a daily basis, rights that citizens are entitled to have and rulings that determine our next president. 

Chomsky also uses cause and effect to portray how the process of businesses and politics work. He mentions Thomas Ferguson`s "investment theory in politics" to help support his claim. By buying access from candidates, they also get access to legislatures, people who create laws, "privileged access means that your corporate lawyers go the staff of the legislature, the people who actually write the legislation." (pg. 101). By having all these connections, basically these laws are only beneficial for the common good of businesses, not all. Chomsky uses pathos by creating a negative connotation on his examples and logos by analyzing evidence and stating logical ideas. His evidence make this claim more compelling to the primary audience, the middle class, because they are more educated and knowledgeable of the historical context and the primary target of the "effects". 

Chomsky is able to support his claim with the use of relatable and logical evidence. The fact that businesses "control" a big aspect of elections and politics not only affects the common man but also the American Dream. 

Make America Great Again? America Was Never Great (according to Chomsky)

Why is the American Dream Revolved Around Money?

In Chomsky`s,  Requiem for the American Dream, he refers back to key historical events to back up his main points, that the American Dream is dead and it is only revolved around money and power. 

When I first read this book, I did not quite get the connection and relevance between his context and the American Dream. It seemed as if he was just talking about history and ridiculing it. Looking back at it multiple times, I understand why he presents it like this; to build up his background information, assert his claim and relate it to current events. One of his main principles was to "Shape Ideology". He mentions the Powell Referendum (background information) to link it to an idea that businesses use their money and power to "beat back this democratizing way" (claim- pg. 22). He then goes on with talking about education and indoctrination. Chomsky mentions how students who go to college end up in a trap, of debt and work. As I remember from the beginning of the chapter, he mentions that "universities" are part of the "raving leftists"(pg. 22). Though it was very difficult for me to understand the purpose, I like how Chomsky sets his book us for the readers to think and in a sense, connect the dots.

Referring back to his example, as college students, we will or already have been placed in this trap and it does limit us from achieving the American Dream. If the only thing we are focused on is paying our debt, then how can we live a comfortable life? If you think about it, the American Dream will only be what it is a dream because we will not have the time and money to buy that house or help organizations. Another question that came to mine when reading this was, why do businesses see colleges as a threat? What are they afraid of? College students are only speaking on what they think is right, what they believe in. This idea of businesses and money has also reminded me of businesses that solely depend on students and education. Companies such as the AP college board get millions of dollars every year from students paying for a test. Though we do get credit for college when we pass, why does it cost $90 for one test and every year it seems to increase more and more? Even in education, everything is about money.

When I think about US History, I think about progress, development and moving forward from past mistakes. When Chomsky thinks about US history, he finds flaws and wrongdoings in America`s actions. Yes, he is not completely incorrect but he backlashes and gives an opinion about a part of history that I would have never thought of before. For example, in the "Sins of American Society" (pg. 6-7), Chomsky mention that even though America was on its way to independence, which many people will say is a good thing, he mentions a major driving force was so that slavery would not be outlawed by the British. He talks about the "progress" of this issue by bringing up how slavery was abolished, but not really. In history class, you only learn the general information of the United States, but not to the point where you begin to question every action. Chomsky goes further in depth to correlate America`s history for the purpose of strengthening his view on the American Dream. I would have never looked at history in that perspective but Chomsky does a good job at emphasizing this. Isn't that what argument is about? To learn about different perspectives?

Personally, Chomsky`s writing was challenging but very informative and in some aspect true. Using a lot of historical evidence (ethos) only helps him prove his points. I liked how he alternates the book pages color from green to off-white to accentuate the color of money and to separate his main points (off-white) and evidence (green). From his arguments about universities to business offshoring, they all are major aspects that actually affect the American Dream that many people, including me, were never aware of.

Arguments, Arguments Everywhere (Are they really?)

Imagine participating in a four corners debate on a controversial issue and the teacher asks 'Should the minimum wage be increased?". The four options are, strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. As students roam the room, they realize that there are more people on one corner than the others. Do you go with the side with the most people or do you go with your belief? 

In Rebecca Jones`s article in, "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother with Logic," she compares argument to war to emphasize how many people see arguments as a win-lose situation. She extends her claim by bringing up mainstream media and how they create a poor example of argumentation. Jones states that mainstream media`s "version of argument seems more like a circus than a public discussion".  What I think Jones is trying to say is that like a circus, the media can become overwhelming and crazy with their diverse opinions or "performances". They build up their position with mainly opinions and the "sprinkles and cherry of a sundae" or extra, unnecessary information because they are too busy with trying to "win".

An example of a "win-lose" argument would be a presidential debate and in this case, it is a literal win-lose situation. The purpose of arguing in debates is to attract people to vote for one side. In the 2016 presidential election, many presidential candidates were known to use "ad hominem arguments", which means that most of what they are saying has nothing to do with the truth of the other candidate and instead they are personally attacking one another. Rather than talking about their position on global warming, they try to backlash one another and get into this never-ending loop of talking over one another until the commentator settles the heat down. As Jones stated, because we have this war-like state of mind in an argument, the argument lacks "research, multiple vantage points and basic logic." As my previous English teacher would say, there is too much "fluff" in the argument that it backtracks others to see the main points. They seem to be so desperate for votes that they are willing to personally attack the other person by bringing up their past and their actions. With this mindset, nothing gets done and voters can only choose a candidate based on what is given to the public, and by not arguing properly, it is not much. Politicians and any candidate should act professional and play a fair game. 

Going back to the minimum wage debate, if I were in the situation of going on the side with most people or following my belief, it would be following my belief because I could never win in an argument if I side with something I never believed in the first place. However for some people, winning means going on side with the most people because there will be others to help build up a strong argument. Either or, this "winning" mentality in an argument is a problem because it does not necessarily create a good argument rather it is only fulfilling our needs and desires to be at the top. 

In order to fix the way we perceive arguments, the mainstream media must set a good example first. As Jones stated, the Average American perceives argument as war because of how the media presents itself as it is. There is no need to spend most of the time in an argument trying to push our own opinions in others faces. An argument`s goal is to be able for us to see the issue in a different perspective, to possibly change our minds, and come together to "answer" the argument`s central issue. As I think about a solution for people to stop perceiving arguments as war, I think about a weight balance. Each side needs to balance one another so they can find a "common ground" for the better.  Be clear with your main statements, counter-argue with facts not only opinion, be open to seeing the other side of the argument. There is no dominating side or a "winner/loser" if you argue properly.