OTHER: I need a second draft for this essay. here are the comments from the professor for the first draft.
As I noted in your DB post, Trust: Testing and Control, you can get even closer to hitting all the requests of my assignments, step by step and part by part. Your work here again demonstrates some thoughtfulness but you leave out too many of the steps as per the assignment handout and turn a lot of this over, it seems, to computer-generated language (?). See what makes me say that in this note below.
Here are suggestions of what needs to be accomplished in the second draft:
1. The first paragraph needs some clarity on what the definite difference in perspectives is between Van Edwards and Ariely. You just say “different perspectives on human nature.” You need to get to know Ariely more and be able to say how his point of view differs from Van Edwards. Also what would his reaction be to such a course?
2. Your thesis needs to be something more exact about what you feel strongly about as a specific point. This point must be the point you have worked out as a guiding force for the whole essay, a point your will work hard to highlight in your topic sentences of your paragraphs and the point you will come back to. You do not yet have a thesis statement (“reveals the complexity” is not a guiding force of a point to work at–to work at hard–to prove as your work as the writer of this essay. Is it a computer-generated statement, by the way? AI and CHATGPT love, love, love phrases like “reveals the complexity..” and “balanced approach…” You can do better yourself, Richard, through your own thoughts.)
3. Your second paragraph is not following the rigor of real visual analysis. See Part B of the assignment sheet as well as Assistive Handout 2 in the Course Menu to get this very important part of your essay into shape.
4. Your third paragraph, Richard–I have no idea what you’re saying and how it conveys anything personal. It doesn’t, really–right? Think of all the stories you’ve read and told since you were young–all with a who, what happened, what you observed, where and at what time in your life, what’s going on, who are you and how can I get to know you through the story you’re conveying, and how I can understand you and agree, “OK, I get it. Because of what Richard has been through or what he has observed personally, because of this being actually Richaed, he would or would not want to take this course.” I can have this kind of reaction to you personally in this part of the paper only if write in an authentic way.
Please see Part C of the assignment handout. I’m really thinking this part came from computer-generated writing. . .
5. For your research part, please convey the research in a more complete way. Remember that I ask that the research has to relate to the rest of the paper–it has to be like a “cap” that the paper wears very fittingly. There are not connections to anything else you said here. In terms of working with a thesis (see my comments above about you needing an actual thesis), a thesis would come back into play when you discuss your research. Please see Assistive Handout 3 in the Course Menu for help on how to write this part of your paper. But please also work on what it is you really want to drive home in this paper–you, Richard, what’s important coming from you to me?–about trust and “being a human lie detector” and how we relate to others in the world? I need to hear your voice.
Remember too, Ariely also has to come back in here as well. Did you do a good job with Journals 1 and 2–these were meant to help you get to know Ariely.
Take your time to do a good job for the second draft. It’s worth 15 points.
Comments from Customer
PREVIOUS PAPER INSTRUCTIONS (#568780097): the essay is based off this article, https://www.scienceofpeople.com/courses/lie-detection/
What is the purpose of this essay?
The purpose of this essay is to grapple with a complex multimodal text related to the course, which will (thanks to your careful analysis) shine light on course themes, in particular Ariely’s moderate-optimistic view honesty and dishonesty. In other words, your analysis of this text will serve as an illuminating lens to view not only the text itself but the course overall so far. In addition, you will gain a more critical perspective on how a claim is made (ex: “humans can—and should be– accurate lie detectors”) in relation to other experts’ opinions.
What will I be writing about?
On her website, “Science of People,” Vanessa Van Edwards advertises a course on “How to Be a Human Lie Detector.” The course promises to educate and train people in detecting lies and hidden emotions with up to 90% accuracy, as it promotes abilities such as “speed read anyone” and “find dishonesty behind words.” The course is expensive, and its marketing (images, expressions, “promises,” assumptions about human nature and deceit being all around us) is elaborate. Your job is to analyze the website as a kind of deliberate message about honesty and dishonesty all around us; to analyze how the website communicates that message (again, images, expressions, promises, assumptions), and how all this information either confirms or contradicts Ariely’s moderate-optimistic view of honesty and dishonesty you’ve been picking up from his book. Note: DO NOT sign up for the course. Only view the webpages that are available—there is already plenty to observe and pick up information on.
What kind of structure can I use for the essay?
Part A: Write the Introduction:
What does it mean to know ourselves as human? Should we strive to see, understand, and accept our own dishonesty? Or does being human obligate us to be “better”? –to be more honest, more integral, and to constantly improve ourselves? (And so should we be less tolerant of others’ faults—such as their lieing—as a result?) As your last sentence of the introduction, create a thesis statement that makes clear your position as well as the point that you realize there are two varying ideas of human nature in play–the view of Van Edwards on self-improvement (and intolerance for others’ faults) and the view of Ariely.
Part B: Next, talk about the advertised course:
Smoothly transition into your discussion of “How to Be a Human Lie Detector,” as it is advertised on the website: How is the course presented? What does Van Edwards want you to believe about lying? (“Point” to what you’re looking at on the site.) What does she want you to believe about people who lie? (“Point” to what you’re looking at the on the site.) What does she want you to believe how easy or hard it is to learn more about liars and lying? (“Point” to what you’re looking at on the site.) As you analyze these messages in the advertisement, analyze the language and images she uses–images, expressions, “promises,” assumptions about human nature and deceit being all around us. Depending on how you feel about this kind of messaging (and what you said in your introduction), also critique (evaluate) her perspective in a strong, ironic, or perceptive tone.
Part C: Next, make a choice: This course does—or does not—hold interest or value for you:
Yes, this course holds definite interest or value for me.
Perhaps this course goes along with your notions of how human beings should constantly improve themselves and not make excuses for themselves or others. Perhaps certain marketing messages or images from the site struck a chord with you, based on your past experience and what you know of other humans. Perhaps you think the course could explain some aspects of human nature that have always annoyed you or that you feel need more attention in today’s world. Bring in some mention of Ariely, and make your case with examples that are believably based on your experience or your own close-up observations of your community, news, culture, or social scene.
No, this course and others like it hold no interest or value for me.
Perhaps you can discern manipulation coming from the site in several places. Perhaps you do not trust Van Edwards for her self-presentation or inconsistencies. Perhaps you’re thinking the approach she offers is not “real world,” not sustainable, and could possibly even backfire in relationships or psychologically for individuals. Bring in some mention of Ariely, and make your case with examples that are believably based on your experience or your own close-up observations of your community, culture, news, or social scene.
Part D: Finally, add some research:
What is one research source you can find—for example, a source on how children learn to trust, or how detecting lies is or is not possible—that supports something you’ve said in Part C of this paper?
Category: Composition
Develop an original, critical argument intended to persuade a specific audience. This 7-9 page research paper will demonstrate your ability to present and support an evidence-based argument, using at least 6 sources to develop evidence, context, and rebuttal.
Format your essay according to MLA Guidelines, which can be found online at the Purdue Owl.
Precede your essay with a brief (50-100 word) Audience Description which states who your intended audience is and summarizes their characteristics that might inform your ability to persuade them.
Incorporate at least 6 sources into your argument:
Two ally sources which support the thesis of your argument, no more than five years old.
One opposition source that disagrees with all or part of your argument, also no more than five years old.
One peer-reviewed academic journal article found in an online database, no more than 10 years old
One contextualizing source, any age, which provides necessary cultural, historical, statistical, or other type of context for your research.
One additional source of any type or age which helps advance your argument.
Arrange your essay thoughtfully and strategically in order to maximize the persuasive effectiveness of your argument for your chosen audience.
Clearly state your claim/thesis, which should be your central argument that answers one of the questions posed by the prompts below.
Contextualize your claim by summarizing the current debates within the conversation you are entering into.
Develop your claim with evidence from your personal experience, common cultural knowledge, or a text that you find (and cite) on your own.
Support your evidence with analysis that demonstrates how it works to support the ideas posited by your central claim.
Incorporate a rebuttal that summarizes another’s claim that disagrees with your own, effectively argues against their claims, and advances your own argument.
Cite any words or ideas created by someone other than you according to MLA Guidelines.
Utilize Standard Academic English, free of grammatical, usage, or spelling errors.
I did this paper n need help
To get a better grade a few edits
Here I my teachers note but if you can do better would be great
The initial grade is a 55%, but you have the opportunity to gain 20% by revising specific elements of the paper–and doing so shouldn’t take much time at all.
Add one parenthetical in-text citation to each section.
- Attempt to format the Works Cited
Use the resources above to help
Each change will raise the final grade 10 points. E.g., if you just add the Works Cited entries, the grade moves from a 55 to a 65. If you do both, it goes to a 75%.
I did this paper n need help
To get a better grade a few edits
Here I my teachers note but if you can do better would be great
The initial grade is a 55%, but you have the opportunity to gain 20% by revising specific elements of the paper–and doing so shouldn’t take much time at all.
Add one parenthetical in-text citation to each section.
- Attempt to format the Works Cited
Use the resources above to help
Each change will raise the final grade 10 points. E.g., if you just add the Works Cited entries, the grade moves from a 55 to a 65. If you do both, it goes to a 75%.
Your research topic should be appropriated narrowed. For instance, “Pollution is bad for the environment” is not an arguable thesis. However, “At least 25 percent of the federal budget should be spent on limiting pollution.” is an arguable thesis. You don’t have to write about a topic related to climate change, but you do have pick from the list of topics on the TCC database Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints.
Sources: Once you have a narrowed topic, you must find at least 6 CREDIBLE sources. THREE of these must be scholarly sources and at least ONE source must be from Gale Opposing Viewpoints. https://go.gale.com/ps/start.do?p=OVIC&u=txshracd2560
Double check your MLA style. You will need in-text citations and a “Works Cited” page. Double-space everything, including the “Works Cited” page. Every source should be used at least one time but can be referenced several times. with your style manual. If you use the “autocite” functions in EbscoHost, make sure you double check with your style manual in your textbook.
Length: Your essay should be 2,100 to 2,500 words in length. I am grading to make sure that you can accurately incorporate quotes, summarized material, and paraphrased material from each source. You can define your topic, talk about the effects or causes of an issue, and end with persuasion. Refer to the resources from previous weeks.
Tone: Use a formal tone, and you do not have to be persuasive in your writing, but you do need to demonstrate critical thinking about the material you have researched.
Due: April 29th. Bring your completed essay to class. Upload it before midnight. Late papers will not be accepted past the three-day mark. There will be a 10% deduction for each day this paper is late.
Examples: Here is a great example of a research essay. https://guides.skylinecollege.edu/ld.php?content_id=44584132
Here is information about quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing https://www.hunter.cuny.edu/rwc/repository/files/the-documented-essay/guides-to-research-and-writing-from-sources/Quotation-Paraphrase-Plagiarism.pdf
Pick a documentary from our TCC Streaming library, Frontline Video, or an approved video from Netflix/Amazon/YouTube. You CANNOT watch a documentary focused on celebrities, crime, history, etc. The documentary you choose must be an hour in length, and there should be an attempt from the filmmaker to persuade the audience about the topic covered. Your essay will analyze the logical, emotional, and ethical appeals of this documentary. You will have to stop the video and write down names of experts, witnesses, and the journalists covering the story. The more specific you are, the better your essay will be.
Your introduction should cover the overall theme/argument of the documentary. You should have a thesis statement. The body of the essay should primarily discuss the logical and emotional appeals. You can also briefly cover the ethical appeal of the filmmaker. If you see any logical fallacies, you can point these out. Here is a reminder of logical appeals and logical fallacies. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/rhetorical_strategies.html Links to an external site.
Your essay should be 1,100 to 1,450 words. Cut out all phrases like, “I’m going to tell you about…” Make sure you cover the main topics of the film and address why certain logical and emotional appeals are successful or unsuccessful. Your conclusion can recommend an action or it can simply sum up the paper creatively. You can use up to three sources to back up or counter the film’s main points. You might also want to bring updated information since the film may have been made in the past. You can choose not to use any sources and simply evaluate the appeals made in the film.
If you want to choose a film NOT related to climate awareness, here are some possibilities from Netflix, Amazon, iTunes and YouTube:
Free on YouTube: BBC Documentary – Hyper Evolution : Rise Of The Robots (Part 1) – YouTube
Where to Invade Next–Michael Moore, Heal (2017), The Game Changers (2018), Crip Camp (2020), Social Dilemma (2020), End Game (2018), Rotten (2017), American Factory (2019) A User’s Guide to Cheating Death (2017), Heroin(e) (2017), Forks and Knives (2011), Icarus (2017), The Truth about Alcohol (2016), Unrest (2017), Cooked (2016), In Defense of Food, After Innocence (2005), 13th (2016), Reversing Roe, This Changes Everything, Thin, Generation Wealth, etc.
If you want to choose a film related to climate awareness, here are some possibilities from Netflix, Amazon, iTunes and YouTube: Some documentaries to consider are Seaconspiracy (2021), Blackfish, Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (2014), Kiss the Ground, Mission Blue, Breaking Boundaries, Youth v. Gov. (2020), Before the Flood, The True Cost, Extinction: The Facts, Tomorrow, An Inconvenient Truth Sequel.
You can also pick any documentary from Frontline which is close to an hour or over an hour. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentaries/
You can review any of the episodes after episode #101 from The Years of Living Dangerously. We watched episode #1 in class. This documentary series examines climate change and how to move beyond polarizing discussions. Here is a free link to all the episodes in season #1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHsR4XNCoQw&list=PLmB1tUgTXBEpRhv9QuUf9NAKnU6Jsi1g5.
Here is a free link to Frontline’s documentary titled “The Power of Big Oil: Part I (Denial) https://www.pbs.org/video/the-power-of-big-oil-part-one-denial-redxh6/.
Here is a free link to a film titled, “Our Planet”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQ3Ko9ZKg8.
Here is a free link to a film titled Living the Change: Inspiring Stories for a Sustainable Futurehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq9sg397ee8.
Here is a free link to film titled, “A Simpler Way: Crisis as an Opportunity” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUwLAvfBCzw.
Here is a free link to a film titled, “Living in a Time of Dying” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UftuDAkwM3I.
Pick a documentary from our TCC Streaming library, Frontline Video, or an approved video from Netflix/Amazon/YouTube. You CANNOT watch a documentary focused on celebrities, crime, history, etc. The documentary you choose must be an hour in length, and there should be an attempt from the filmmaker to persuade the audience about the topic covered. Your essay will analyze the logical, emotional, and ethical appeals of this documentary. You will have to stop the video and write down names of experts, witnesses, and the journalists covering the story. The more specific you are, the better your essay will be.
Your introduction should cover the overall theme/argument of the documentary. You should have a thesis statement. The body of the essay should primarily discuss the logical and emotional appeals. You can also briefly cover the ethical appeal of the filmmaker. If you see any logical fallacies, you can point these out. Here is a reminder of logical appeals and logical fallacies. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/rhetorical_strategies.html Links to an external site.
Your essay should be 1,100 to 1,450 words. Cut out all phrases like, “I’m going to tell you about…” Make sure you cover the main topics of the film and address why certain logical and emotional appeals are successful or unsuccessful. Your conclusion can recommend an action or it can simply sum up the paper creatively. You can use up to three sources to back up or counter the film’s main points. You might also want to bring updated information since the film may have been made in the past. You can choose not to use any sources and simply evaluate the appeals made in the film.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/rhetorical_strategies.html
Respond to ALL of the following questions:
What is the easiest and the hardest part of writing (i.e., figuring out how to start, gathering ideas, applying correct grammar, meeting the word count requirement, citing sources, etc.)?
How do you tackle your writing assignments? What is your writing strategy? How do you overcome writer’s block?
Why are correct grammar and correct punctuation essential in writing?
How are grammar and punctuation useful in the “real world” (outside school)? Provide an example.
Note: To earn full credit for this graded discussion, post at least two times. First, post your own thoughts (you must create a thread/post before you can view/respond to others). This post should be substantial (containing at least 250-300 words). Next, respond to the post of another student. Remember to follow the rules of netiquette. Be polite, professional, and thoughtful. This post should contain at least 100-150 words. All posts need to be in your own words.
Consider: To be a top contributor, write your first post by mid-week during the lesson discussion period to give classmates time to consider and respond to ideas.
this has to be a research paper on the life of john bunyan and his book “the pilgrims progress” in turabian format.
Please summarize the attached two articles in one page half page for each article separately. Thank you
1) https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-englishcomp2/chapter/identifying-bias/
2) https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-englishcomp2/chapter/evaluating-websites/