Thonney's Got the Keys, Keys, Keys For Successful Academic Writing

Going into this reading, truthfully, I wasn't thrilled. I expected to be super confused and afraid of the truths Teresa Thonney had in regards to first year students writing mistakes and just the fact that it is an academic journal article. I can't be the only one that cringes when I hear those words. Fortunately, I’m glad that my expectations were not met. I really enjoyed reading this!

One thing I enjoyed reading about Thonney’s article was how direct it was. For instance I liked how, even though her introduction was not very interesting or did not provide any sort of anecdote, I appreciate how she got straight to the point by clearly stating her argument. I am aware that Thonney isn't addressing first years as her primary audience so she shouldn't be necessarily impressing me with her introduction but her writing style did remind me of how I’ve been writing essays all my high school years, mainly timed or in class. When I would write to my primary audience, my teacher, I also got straight to the point and did not have a formal introduction with an attention gainer or an anecdote. Thonney mentioned that writing concisely is a form of academic  writers adopting a voice of authority.

I also found it interesting how Thonney wrote about the need for academic writers to respond to what others say about their topic. She discusses how writers need to join a conversation to show how they understand their readers concerns and just use previous research to support their argument. I couldn't help but think of what Rebecca Jones wrote about the what a good argument should consist of. Jones argued that good arguments should not be limited and one sided but that both pro and con should be open to each other’s claims.

Thonney seems to supports Jones’ argument by telling her audience that academic writers acknowledge that others might disagree with the position they’ve taken.  Thonney says that using hedges allows the writer to sound less opinionated in their writing. Personally, I have never noticed the significance of those words and how they can alter the meaning of the entire sentence. I really like this strategy because it gives critics less room to talk negatively about your argument.

While telling her audience the effects of writing concisely, Thonney also define the term lexical words as meaning-carrying words. I’ve always used these words in writing but I never knew they were called something bizarre like lexical words! I just always thought I was shortening my sentence to make it concise. I never knew there was a name for this process. It’s great to know that I was doing this before I knew what the actual term was. In addition, I like how Thonney proves how common lexical words are in various texts such as in scholarly journals and cell biology.

Thonney uses plenty of rhetorical strategies such as exemplification, compare and contrast, and authorities and big names to demonstrate to her readers how vital her conventions are in order for first year students to succeed in academic writing. Her strategies help establish her credibility as an author as well evoke ethos in her readers.

Since When Did Caring For Others Become "Dangerous"?

You know how most parents always raised you to believe that caring for others was imperative natural, and necessary? I wonder if rich and powerful families were raised to think otherwise?

Chomsky makes the claim that policy formation is based on the principle of solidarity (66). He goes on to define solidarity as “caring for others” (66). In addition he uses social security and public education as examples of policy formation.  I believe him choosing these two examples is ethos because he’s using two major and well known programs to gain the reader's attention. Also, these programs are large and a majority of American citizens have a connection to these programs one way or another. For instance, millions of families are affected by the public education policy as long as their children are in school. Therefore by Chomsky mentioning them, it causes the readers to pay more attention to his claim because they will realize, “hey this may pertain to me at one point or another!”

Now that he has the reader’s attention, he goes on to discuss how solidarity does not pertain to the rich since they believe so much in the idea of individualism. The rich are angered by the fact that their taxes is going towards a program that is not benefiting them in any way but only feeding the mouths of another family. Unfortunately, they see it only as paying for another person’s means of living. Therefore they tear it down by defunding the program causing the people to find another means of living. I don't really understand how this idea seems plausible since most programs are funded by the rich, won’t Congress just create another policy similar to Social Security to fulfill the majorities needs?

It is ironic that Chomsky begins Principle #5 by saying how dangerous solidarity is because society has taught us that caring for others is beneficial and that you willl be rewarded for doing so. Yet, “from the view of the masters, you’re only supposed to care for yourself, not about other people.” He goes on to say that this is much easier for the rich and powerful to complete but hard for everyone else. The statement, “it’s taken a lot of effort to drive these basic human emotions out of people’s heads” suggests that the rich never had human emotions since it was so easy to let them go.

Overall Chomsky was arguing how our founding fathers built this country to stand on individualism and to not be dependent on others, that everyone should be in charge of how they construct their lives. However, this rule did not apply to every American, especially back then. This idea only pertains to the elite, rich and powerful: people who have status included with their name. Here Chomsky uses logos to relate to the readers. Our class, his current audience, is not apart of the rich and powerful so we find it logical to believe that it isn't possible for the rich to feel real human emotions, solidarity, towards people like us.   

When Did It All Go Wrong???

Do you ever feel like a plastic bag, drifting through the wind, questioning the very foundation the American Dream was built upon? Me too and apparently Chomsky does too!

Chomsky uses the introduction to break down the American Dream by defining democracy. I remember learning about the definition of democracy and the various types in my AP Government class and comparing it to today's type of government. Of course it's no where the same as it was back then. I like how Chomsky confirms this. Chomsky describes pure democracy as putting “power into the hands of the general population” and “taking it away from the privileged and the powerful. It’s a principle of concentration of wealth and power.” So whenever the rich got too rich, the less privileged would  intervene and take over their land. This idea of this pure democracy has changed over time due to the “concentration of wealth yielding to the concentration of power”.

Chomsky is making it known that the wealthy have had a considerably large “amount of control over policy”. Based on this claim, it can be concluded that due to rich and wealthy getting more wealthier and creating and control policies to fit their needs, the dreams and needs of a majority of Americans are left ignored.

Chomsky claimed that the wealthy have always had control over policy (15). He quotes Adam Smith and uses the example of how the Senate used to be only elected by the wealthy, higher class individuals, legislatures. This system did not allow for the opinion of the majority of American citizens and therefore policies were not fit to satisfy groups that dominated the population such as women and minorities. Therefore, it was not truly the way democracy was supposed to be executed.

Today, the Senate is elected by the public and a majority of the policies are largely shaped by the opinions of the public. Yet still a majority of Americans still have difficulty in getting their opinions to the government. Especially since most of these policies change once each party leaves the office. For instance, immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not having their opinions taken into account. Due to the ending of this program, many Americans are not being allowed to live their American Dream, materialistic and abstract while others can: a very accurate representation of inequality.

Inequality can lead to many unfortunate consequences on a society, as Chomsky explained. Chomsky tells us that inequality “has a corrosive, harmful effect on social relations, on consciousness, and on human life”. From this I realized that it's very clear in society. Inequality has always been around but seems to have gained recent attention in the media, anywhere from immigrants right to #blacklivesmatter. I believe Chomsky is trying to demonstrate that as long as inequality is prominent in our society, the American Dream will be delayed.

Because inequality is an aspect of society that does not go away, Chomsky is showing us that it is virtually impossible to achieve the American Dream. The more people are trying to convince others that inequality isn't present or we are living in a pure democracy, the more we’re straying away from the aspect of the dream by being ignorant to the fact that inequality is present and we do not live in a pure democracy. We never have. Perhaps once people realize this, steps towards achieving the American Dream can be reached.

Compromise is Key

There is this restaurant in my hometown called Jack’s Urban Eats and they're are pretty well known for their Urban Fries and chicken strips. With these chicken strips, you get only two choices of sauce: ranch and barbecue. I hate that so much. There are so many other varieties of sauces out there and they just limit our choice to ranch and freaking barbecue sauce! Where’s my sweet and sour, honey mustard, KETCHUP??? I actually don't like ketchup that much, but you all get the picture. The limited choices of sauces at this restaurant is similar to the problem Jones addressed in her essay Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic concerning the restricted viewing of arguments.

As Jones noted, arguments have been limited to a “this or that” set up and because of this there leaves a lot of ignorance in between. Jones says that “while many pro and con arguments are valid, they can...shut down the very purpose of having an argument: the possibility that you might change your mind.” After reading that, i did one of those “it all makes sense now”.  A little after this statement, Jones provided examples of relevant topics today such as gun control, cap and trade, and free universal healthcare and asked her audience to find a compromise in between. Most of these political speeches present issues that are relative in today’s society but are “this or that”. You are either for or against gun control for instance. Popular media and higher officials have been falsely leading people into following this way of arguing and making it seem like that is the best and only way to stand for something.

Towards the end of her introduction, Jones reassures us that it is okay to compromise and have believe in both pro and con. It's okay to believe that guns are bad but are okay to have after having a background check and other tests. In fact, this is the right way to have an argument. Jones defines argument as “multiple and complex” and  “can be logical, rational, emotional, fruitful, useful, and even enjoyable.” And that makes complete sense. If everything you try to argue for is this or that, you’re never thinking in a logical and realistic way.

Jones mentions how everyone in America comes from different background and are diverse in terms of social class, economic status, and political views therefore there could never be “pro or con”. In argumentative writing, we are taught to offer counterarguments for each point and I believe that's a possible solution to the “this or that” problem. It allows people to take a step back and open up their perspective on the topic.

America was founded as a free, democratic nation after escaping from a monocratic regime. In a monarchy, we learn from history that there is not room for everyone’s opinion and we could imagine that for the most part many arguments were very “this or that”. So it doesn't make sense that American citizens would allow that to occur in their country, yet it has been for centuries. It would make sense for compromise in arguments or debates to happen.

Yes, argument is popular and necessary in life however arguing logically through the use of counterarguments is necessary and perhaps allows for more fluid and compromising results.