In the three CCM essays assigned
for today, there were a variety of arguments with differing structures. One
that stood out to me in particular was “Internet Filters Hinder Student
Research.” In the writer’s reflection, the author mentions how they ended up
switching sides of the argument, and I have had a similar experience while researching
sources for Inquiry Three. While I haven’t switched sides, I have been exposed
to new viewpoints that have made me rethink my topic in a different light. I
think this is beneficial, as it allows me a better understanding of the entire
issue at hand, not just what I had initially focused on.
The way the essay was structured
with explanations behind the arguments of the opposition and the author’s assessments
about the situation is something I plan on incorporating in my paper. The
author also raises a good point when she mentions the differing definitions of
what is “harmful” to minors. “…there is a difference between the meanings of “
harmful” when it comes to different grade levels” is how she states the
importance of the use of definitions in an argument. This was something I have
seen in the begging chapters of Everything’s
An Argument, as well as in today’s readings on page 256. I feel like this
is relevant in almost every argument, as the way one side defines something can
be very different from the other side’s definition, thus creating a less
effective argument. This article also does a good job of using the Toulmin
model for argument, as its claim that Internet filters are negatively effecting
student research is debatable. The author combines her opinions on the matter
with quotes form experts and other articles on the topic, providing evidence
for their thoughts and arguments.
All of the essays in the CCM did a
really good job of presenting their arguments in a way that was easy to follow
and understand. For my paper, I am currently thinking how to arrange the information
I am gathering in a way that the reader can follow easily and understand why
the argument is significant. These essays are good examples of how to
accomplish this.
I like how you could connect to the writer reflection of this paper. I also agree and thought that the "harmful" to minors was a good point to bring up. I noticed use of the Toulmin Model too but I think it would have been more affective to add if you went into detail about how they used the toulmin logic. Taken us step by step with examples would have made it a lot more clear, rather than the broad statement that they used it. Other than that, good job!
ReplyDeleteI also really liked how you pointed out how the author was defining the word "harmful" to minors. I really agreed with this point, but I think I would have redefined the word "minors" instead of the word harmful. While internet filters in grade school may be necessary I think that the filters need to be lessened or done away with at the high school level. When a senior is 18 years old, technically an adult in the eyes of the law, and can't access a sight vital to his research because of internet filters that is ridiculous. I also liked how you specifically pointed to a page on Everything's an Argument because i did something similar in mine.
ReplyDelete