1. Glance at the Nature piece; has the author adequately paraphrased the author’s main thesis? Is the entire article devoted to proving this argument? If not, help the author to identify the article’s main thesis and paraphrase it.
2. What would be the thesis statement for an article arguing against the author’s point? In other words, what is the thesis’s antithesis?
3. How many pages do you think it will take the author to prove this thesis adequately?
4. Would you describe the thesis as very general, general, specific, or very specific? Why?
5. Based only on the paraphrase of the thesis statement, what evidence will the author use to support his or her argument? How do you know?
6. In what order will this evidence be presented? How do you know?
7. Why does this argument matter to Nature’s readers?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Draft Workshop 1: February 9
Read over the latest draft of your 1.2 with the frame written by your group member. Answer the following questions about the draft in its current state:
1. What is your immediate reaction to the draft? Do you like it? Does it sound like your voice?
2. Note 3 words or phrases that probably wouldn’t have been in the draft if you had written the entire thing.
3. How has the author attempted to make the scientific material meaningful to your blog’s audience? Explain the similarities or differences to how you would have done things.
4. Create a plan for what needs to be done to take this draft to “ready to post” status by Thursday.
1. What is your immediate reaction to the draft? Do you like it? Does it sound like your voice?
2. Note 3 words or phrases that probably wouldn’t have been in the draft if you had written the entire thing.
3. How has the author attempted to make the scientific material meaningful to your blog’s audience? Explain the similarities or differences to how you would have done things.
4. Create a plan for what needs to be done to take this draft to “ready to post” status by Thursday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)