Recommended structure: For this paper you have 5-6 pages to work with and you need to include, in effect, five major parts:
Note that these are five parts, not paragraphs (exceptions: the introduction and the conclusion are usually one paragraph each). What could this look like? Here’s an example: After the brief introductory paragraph (where you introduce your topic, an overview of the conversation you’re entering, a sense of your argument and briefly why your argument matters), you might have a summary of one author (1 paragraph), then a summary of the second author (1 paragraph), and a summary of another author or position (1 paragraph).
Then you might have one paragraph that explains how they agree or disagree (though you can already allude to that in the summary paragraphs through phrases like “Unlike X, Y asserts that…”). Note that the paragraph that explains how the authors or arguments agree or disagree is still “they say,” since you’re not yet putting forward your own opinion on the issues. At that point you’ll have written about 3 pages. Then you write your own argument (“I say”) in relation to the conversation you’ve set up (about two pages). At that point you’ve written about 5 pages.
Then you end with a concluding paragraph, where you wrap it up with a return sentence and again explain why it matters. Keep in mind that this way of structuring your argument is only a suggestion; it doesn’t have to be exactly like that. But hopefully this gives you an idea of what this kind of paper could look like.Grading Guide: I will grade your MWP3 according to the following grading guide. Use this guide when writing your paper.Introduction (10 points)Includes an overview of the conversation (names of key authors and the issues you’re bringing up), clear “I say” statement (thesis) placed in relation to authors, and a brief explanation of why your argument matters“They say” (20 points): Shows conversation paper is responding toSummary includes basic information about authors as well as the full title of essays; summaries do not agree or disagree with authors (summaries inhabit worldview); summaries use sophisticated signal verbs to summarize authors’ points; no listing or “closest cliché” (pp. 31, 35, 33)Quoting (20 points): Uses quotes correctly and appropriatelyQuotes used to present “proof of evidence” (p. 42) in summary of authors’ arguments — Quotes should not be “orphans” (p. 43) —
Quotes should be framed appropriately (“quotation sandwich”) (p. 46) — Quotes should be Introduced with appropriate verb (p. 47) — Quotes should present “proof of evidence” (p. 42) — Indicates page number of quote (p. 48)“I Say” (20 points): Clear statement of your own argumentClearly distinguishes “they say” from “I say” – Clearly signals who is saying what: Uses at least one template from pp. 72-75 — “I say” includes clear reasons for argument that are not simply summaries of authors’ arguments – Clearly plants naysayer to support “I say” argument (use at least one template from pp. 82, 83,84-85, 89).Conclusion (10 points)Includes at least one “return sentence” in the conclusion to remind reader of what “they say” (p. 27); includes a restatement of thesis or “I say”; includes a developed explanation of why your argument matters (uses templates from pp. 95-96, 98-99).Bibliography or Works Cited (10 points)Includes proper bibliographic form — no annotations included here — includes 5 sources; 2 must be peer-reviewedEditing and tone (10 points)No editing errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting); Uses proper tone (formal where appropriate, informal where appropriate)