Elizabeth Svoboda's Use Of Real Life

The paper starts off with an introduction, which then leads to a thesis, which is followed by additional information and a conclusion. The overall view and layout of the article are portrayed in a manner that is appealing to the eye. However, the paper does have its faults in the organization and in context to the overall subject manner. For example, Peter A. Coclanis and Stanley L. Engerman do not claim their thesis until approximately halfway through the entire article. The two authors provide a wide area of background information to support their thesis, but a part of it is not really supportive and is what causes their thesis to be pushed so far into the article.

Many of the statistics shocked me and made me wonder about the future for our generation. As I continued reading, I realized how much of the surveys and statistics that he used were deceptive and manipulated my way of thinking. Bauerlein uses and abuses statistics to sway his readers thoughts to what he believes is correct. Statistics are not as reliable as they may seem but the author did use valid and trustworthy resources and organizations such as The National Board of Science. The argument was very convincing and did make me wonder about the future for our generation and made me even more worried about the next generation after mine. Overall, the argument was strong and well planned.

2b) The authors provided the reader a lot of information on the topic. Each topic was very well explored. A lot of different information on different but similar studies. The authors seemed very knowledgeable on the topic. This article lacked a few things. A clear research question and a hypothesis. The paragraphs were not clear and consist, I felt that I had to dig to get certain information. The paper was very wordy, which made me have a hard time understanding the substance.

In this article, I found new key points to support my new claim of what the author 's main point is.  At certain parts in the article, the author explains  how he has learned lessons in the factory which he couldn 't have learned in the classroom.  These lessons allowed him to better his college life, by understanding why it is important to not sack off is one example.  There are many instances in this article that I can use to support my claim.  By showing the specific text in my essay, will further substantiate my claim and allow me to show my audience the author 's key point and enforce my stance.

Did you find any research articles on which you could perform a critique? Describe the type of article and add the reference to the article. (2 pts)

The authors in my opinion did a great job in arguing their points, which overall made this piece valid. However, as I have stated throughout this paper that I do not agree with all the arguments they are giving for example, how they often speak negatively about the way SNL is informing people though comedy, and how they give off the vibe that all people prioritize things that are happening in the same way. When people have the right to feel and prioritize things however they want. The way that both authors Mark McBeth and Randy Clemons argue their side of the argument was with opinions therefore, they may have been more persuasive if they used more statistics.

The author does not provide a counter argument for his or her claims. The editorial also did not flow as well when read. The paragraphs jumped from one topic to the next. This made it very confusing where the author got his information. Claims are to be explained and provide other solutions. Claims also need to provide both sides of the argument not just one side. The author also did not use ethos or pathos to move the audience. The author’s lack of ethos and pathos gives a clear indication that this is not an

The purpose of this report is to conduct a critical appraisal of a published article.

I do not believe the article can be improved upon. It has statistics and studies proving the point it was trying to make. It also does not make fake or biased claims and has a very precise assessment.

Despite the fact that Omar failed to use much research and study information, he does uses logical conclusions to back up his claims and convey his message. He provides a list of facts, but they cannot be verified as true without reliable sources. However, he does use first-hand experiences and logical conclusions to help build his case. Overall, the piece could use some work, such as more outside experts and more of a formal approach to be more convincing to the readers. Even so, the article had a great impact on getting the message through to the readers.

As I reflect on the last WebEx meeting, I am very glad to have gotten to know the people taking this course. We have struggled together and helped each other become better writers. The WebEx meeting began with some information about the feedback from our IRP-2 research paper. Dr. Chuang went through some of the vast amount of resources that she provided us with. She explained the timeline and told us how we could use it (and the other resources) for the required graphics needed in the paper. She explained that in the introduction and historical part of our research writing, we need to use formal writing and not inject our opinions. Then in the teaching strategies and conclusion part we can

You are good at telling the story and most of the arguments seem pretty clear. But, due to curiosity, I still ask some questions along the paper...

6. Methods and analysis: your big challenge comes from the reviewers who do not feel you can do what you claim you did with your data, so focus there. My complaints concern clarity of how you got to where you got to, which might be part of their issues too. On p. 13, the root metaphors that you use then use to, I think, demonstrate discursive struggles, seem to pop out of nowhere, and if I want to understand them I have to go read yet another set of articles. (and now reading this for the third time I see that the root metaphors are different from the discursive struggle metaphors…yikes, am I confused now!)

**This case analysis scored a low A (23/25). It does a good job with the introduction. It answers each of the questions posed. It also does a nice job applying the perceptual biases from the text and class to the case. The biggest deduction in its score came as a result of its conclusion. Note that although it provides a nice summary of points raised in the analysis, it does not include a description of generalizable lessons learned or take home messages from the case. A complete conclusion needs to go beyond the case.

The article focuses too much on the elements relating to the study and not enough on the study itself. For example, within the first ten pages of the article, there is a significant buildup of the importance of Algebra and the benefits of using technology and interactive tools in general. The researchers could have given a shorter description on the importance of Algebra and on the benefits of using technology and interactive tools. Additionally, the “Content Focus” section of the article is overwhelming and confusing. I have read and re-read this section of the article, and I am not sure how it is relevant to the study and results of the study. The diction used within this particular section of the article is also difficult to follow and understand. It seems as though this section could be completely eliminated from the article.