looking at the sections, seeing which ones go too far and which ones need more to them

essentially, using this framework, assess all the parts of your writing with a critical eye

will be useful to refer back to these

this chapter introduces methods for self critique and revision - which questions to ask

strong writing needs metacommentary of some kind, lest it be misunderstood or mismanaged - or regarded as having no worldly implications at all

considering the opposing views

to assign value to a certain idea or highlight one

to zoom out and show the bigger picture - the why

to direct the reader's thoughts towards your argument

to clarify or simplify

stepping outside to clarify who says what

text outside of your thesis and reasoning, such as some of the previous chapters, are also metacommentary

it is often a good idea to use metacommentary as the title - it tells the reader the basis of the paper

after the colon, he states what he means

verbally singling out the writer explaining the argument to the readers - a form of checking in

also phrases to pertain to the writer and their writing moves, their methods

contrary to the assumption that academia needs to be obscure and difficult, more casual speak is a useful tool in multiple ways

you are essentially breaking the fourth wall of your argument

similar to simplifying, metacommentary can help the writer understand their own ideas better, in addition to adding more words

it's always good to clarify when you aren't sure, as some reader will inevitably misinterpret you - it helps to again clarify your ideas for the audience

the text and the metatext are tied - if the text is the movie, the metatext is your thoughts during the movie, guiding the story along

good to think of it as a narration or appendix

metacommentary - an explanation to the reader of how to interpret the previous thought - "that is, i meant, etc"

not only can using simpler language in your writing help you form fuller ideas, but can also help the reader follow you and ground their impressions. additionally, it is a practice that challenges the standards of modern writing

this, however, i would not use.

also using the term 'alien', which has modern political connotations

and that the language made real sense with the rest of the sentence

it also is good to use standard speech when the reader otherwise would find it difficult to understand the writing

a 'personal voice', however, has its time and place. one needs to consider the context, as with most things

if it can't be explained simply, chances are that it really doesn't make sense

if a field is regarded as hard, it will be hard until someone helps to see it differently - making these sorts of colloquial claims helps to ground them in reality

the process of writing helps the writer fully grasp their argument, and the process of simple explanation is a part of that - especially if you have a collaborator

rewording can also help you as the writer better grasp the ideas

good phrase for something assertive and memorable

a good strategy: to put yourself in the shoes of a skeptic - actively look for holes in your own argument

i personally enjoy metaphors

almost like a label or cover for the argument

sometimes if the spirit of the essay is serious, as this one is in a humorous way, one might be able to add translating parentheses

a hypothetical quote

indeed also serves as both proof that you know your stuff and that you want the readers to understand it

i also think this is how most people process their thoughts, as I do

note 243

using a known and modern term, makes it all more chewable

a way of saying "in other words"

in the view of these authors, academic writing is better with both types of language - academic and everyday

i believe it comes with learning to be more of an adult, more professional yet passionate, more assertive yet imaginative

again, there's an ideal medium between totally complicated and totally juvenile

there is a natural fear of sounding too colloquial

although repetition might seem confining, the sense one gets from reading it, when done well, helps those certain phrases stick out and allows the paper to be written around them.

in addition to not 'leaving' your reader in the dust

not only because height has to do with basketball, but opposing terms and feelings like fear and love

or this sentence, funnily enough. it's a good idea to practice making every sentence connect in some way after the first

in an artful way, opposites attract

or in the form of directly contradictory statements

it is as much theatrical as it is functional

also repeated contradicting 'i' statements

shows explicitly what he keeps returning to

repeatedly naming key terms to stamp them into the mind of the reader, giving them importance

possible remedy if confusing, something like "the latter"

pointer words should be used only when they could possibly only be referring to one thing

or you might subconsciously expect your reader to be thinking with you when they couldn't be

error

of course pronouns and proper nouns can be referred to as 'pointed words', but it is also easy to make them sound confusing if overused. proofreading is key

however, be careful not to plug them in at will - they have to make sense, hence the point of the chapter

in short, don't be afraid to use too many, it might not be possible. it is good to be paying attention to them

which is exactly why saying any is in effect taking a stand

new direction sentence, 'although'

each of these are the writer taking a stance or side as well.

a refute, and agreement, both, etc.

also to use repetition, but not redundancy

a few methods they suggest, in addition to proofreading, are to use specific terms that are junctions, bouncing off point, things that have the implication of being reactionary.

a certain aesthetic value to it

being careful not to catch the reader too off guard

imagine your ideas as pieces of a conversation ; how would that conversation sound? what is the bridge?

key word "sustained" - always making relative statements

an important aspect of writing is anticipating how it will sound when somebody reads it - proofreading is key

careful not to write-as-you-think, producing a string of consciousness necessarily, but weave them together so it's easy to follow

order/syntax - connecting sentences

"although", however, etc

the so what/who cares questions serve to show both that the writer has a good knowledge of the practicalities of a given field and to engage the reader

also, they can serve to further interest readers who previously didn't know about the subject

although obviously not fitting everywhere, it's safe to assume that you should always plan on explaining the who cares/so what

show the reader why it's important to them

"this is much more important than how people treat it"

"the world is becoming too much__"

real world implications

and the first helps the second take shape

part of guiding the argument towards your audience, sometimes being general and appealing to basic human feelings and rationales

why are they universally important?

even theatrics, 'edge of your seat'

stakes could be: this is in the best interests of these people, however, they are not willing to adopt it.

zeroing in on an aspect of the argument and exposing it - also giving the reader proper context by labeling

why should anybody, not just scientists, be interested?

using vague past tense and then bringing it to 'in recent years' - development of thought in a certain community is identified as the type of conversation

pairing the who with the what also serves as labeling and helps the audience follow

part of the stakes are who agrees as well as who disagrees

as soon as you can - tell your audience why they should pay attention to your conversation

why it matters could be that somebody else has an opposing view, or that the issue does not have enough attention

considering objections is one of the most useful tools not only for strengthening and argument, but also in realizing that you might need to change it

with the topic now somewhat centered around what you learned in the process

often what is best is a mix between agreeing and disagreeing with you objections

similar to : i agree there's a problem, but that's not how to fix it

'what you're saying is true, but it doesn't necessarily pertain to the issue at hand, and in fact, doesn't seem to matter anyway'

going back to agreeing and disagreeing at the same time, shows that you have a full knowledge of the subject and what it entails. It's easy to just say 'no'

this is not a conversation

you should be able to give the objection full credit while at the same time rendering your argument more important, with evidence

you need to be able to respond successfully and soundly to the objection so as to avoid it not taking over your own argument

don't punish people, it just ain't right

think of somebody who sees from a labeled opposing group with known opinions

not only that, but the opposite makes the writer look like someone who fears the objection and is being dishonest with themselves or the reader

a way of 'showing' a conversation, but like a play rather than a paper

serves a more of a back and forth conversation to make an initial point

broad labels and terms like 'might', 'maybe' or 'probably'

very meta: considering the objection that labels are bad because they restrict and categorize, there is a case for some degree of categorization as a medium at which to meet the readers

labeling the objector also helps the reader understand where they might be coming from - somebody must have some grounds for objecting to you

again, giving proper consideration to what will continue to exist no matter what

or considering objections is interestingly a good way to generate ideas for the paper itself, addressing critics right away

and gives the writing a more human element - i understand that you may have this disagreement, to which i might say...

not only does it show mastery of the subject, but strengthens the knowledge of it even more given this new angle of attack

similar to disagreement: they exist, and pushing them away won't change that

considering objections in your text is a strong move and gives you credibility, and shows that you have actually considered flaws or shortcoming of your argument

voice makers and embedding is a good way to not get confused with who says what.

It is imperative to know who says what, as failing to do so is doing a poor job of guiding your readers through an argument or conversation

you can embed another opinion into your own sentences, making it easier for both you and the reader. air quotes, emphasis on certain words like in a verbal conversation

although, don't use personal pronouns when they are not needed and you could be more concise

using personal pronouns is okay, especially in philosophy, and what matters is the evidence and quality of the argument made after this statement

similarly to paying close attention to who is saying what, make that process as easy as possible for your readers

and also suggests a new problem that although we are all middle class, class is how one determines their place in the world, and so nobody is able to

it is critical to pay attention to who says what, and get both right

a reversal, and 180, an "although" or "however"

because what he says is a response to a view he had outlined

this is what sold it for me - negative connotation to an existing idea, challenging it

language plays a key factor, too

"this is how we think the world looks, i guess"

after all, why would he say something that contradicts him? setting up the context of the argument and describing it in a neutral way - on its own, it could easily be seen as an argument for the opposite of what mantsios intended

who says what, especially in an argument, matters a lot

being ambivalent depends on the context of your paper - it can even offer more credibility when the topic is very complicated - or even if you provide reasons for your lack of interest in either side

the same type of 'guided discussion' presentation for an audience

also offers not necessarily a neutral opinion, but a controversial one - forces the readers to consider the issue within the scope of their own lives.

'yes, i agree there's a problem in this area, but no, that isn't how you fix it"

using language to suggest a favorable position

"One hand/other hand" method: good for keeping yourself organized so your readers can better follow

by agreeing and conceding aspect of one's argument, they make themselves more credible but showing that they understand the topic and the opponents reasoning

agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously allows for a better conversation as opposed to a heated argument

while also offering something completely new to the conversation - the hybrid perspective and reasons for it

this could also be the answer if she had been asked if she disagreed with the other question - she addresses it with respect to each side

be connected, plugged in, yet stand out, shine brightly

not only does others "beating you" give you more credibility, but may force you to agree with them in ways you hadn't yet thought of

although you agree, you must bring something new; a new angle, a new proof, corroboration, explanation,

the same way that interpretation is taking a stance that something needs to be interpreted for the betterment of the field

making it chewable as a move for agreeing with the author, giving it legs with a personal story or situation that others can relate to

previous comment

provide something to say, maybe agree for a reason other than what the author says which further strengthens their claim

agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously is often rather difficult - as is changing one faulty part of a car when the rest of it is dependent on that part

it is always better to make disagreements known since they exist, and the disagreement need only be with the idea and not from whom it came

a tailored reductio ad absurdum

agreement by saying "of course, who wouldn't agree?"

although disagreeing may seem to make the writing easier, one must be able to have grounds for their disagreement and state them so as not to have things turn into a shouting match but remain a conversation

even if one describes a thing by pointing out new details, it is because somebody else overlooked or failed to recognize those things earlier - or haven't discovered it

there is not much to be gained outside of personal interpretation without agreeing, disagreeing, or both. you wont change anybody's thinking

as soon as you state your position, your readers will be able to a) identify your thesis and b) better follow it

not necessarily dumbing it down, more like offering ideas in a more chewable way - cater to the audience

it is also useful is quickly showing your readers the point of your paper - as well as for yourself

in order to place oneself in an argument, one has to take a stand or position: agree, disagree, or a hybrid of both

the quality of an argument is not necessary dependent on how much you know, but how you structure your thought around it - it's about offering a perspective based on something else

be careful not to introduce in a misleading way. be explicit but concise - verbs that have to do with taking a side, not more

previous comment

your paraphrasing also helps to show where you are coming from

it is better to overexplain than to underexplain

don't ramble unless the quotation forces you to, and maybe then, don't use that entire quotation

where the writer also uses tannon's own terms to craft their argument, being that academia is combative

sandwich

also proves that the writer knows what the quotation actually means

if not the position they take, then the outward emotion that they show as an indicator

as aforementioned, by saying something somebody is also taking a stance on something, which fits into the context of the argument

make the quotation chewable for the readers

form for quotations:

1. introduce it, who said it, why
2. the quotation itself
3. explanation of it and why it matters to your argument

not only did the writer not explain the quotation, but did not give any background or context for its origin or purpose

the writer doesn't make the quotation easy enough to chew on and render in an efficient way

perhaps a good method is to insert quotation only when you're done writing, so they can act as markers throughout the form of your argument

it's never an easy process, you may want one at the beginning but be unable to use it by the end

previous comment

either weave quotations cohesively through the paper or give each quotation its necessary supplementary information - the point being to show the reader why this particular quotation matters in your argument and why it is where it is in relation to the rest of your argument

explaining or paraphrasing the quote is part of presenting the opposing view

not only am i not making this up, but i'm not putting any kind of 'spin' on it necessarily either

in addition to helping the reader better understand where the discussed author is coming from

in 'saying' something, somebody takes a stance that ought to be recognized. it also sounds nicer

"essentially, without knowing so, they say..." pulling back the mask of the opposition with its own logic

reductio ad adsurdum

and focus on where the author has said that, bring attention to it and present it

going back, your view and the opposition are entangled and are a 'unit'

lists are good when each item follows the next around the theme of your argument, and might even have an explicit explanation to tie it all together at the end

remember the point, remember the argument, remember why it matters

if the opposition point is not the main point of its text, then don't treat it like one, or alternatively, don't waste time arguing with fringe opinions

again, zeroing in on the focus of the writer's argument

the focus of your claim, zooming in on a particular aspect

the step of 'guiding' the opposition toward your argument, making it all make sense with each part in relation to the other.

be careful not to argue against something that you merely imagine or perceive

where the writer mistakes what they are summarizing for a much simpler version of it, likely because they have not understood it or attempted to adequately

not only does the faux summary show bias against DZ, but intentionally under-represents his argument.

DZ even entertains the opposing viewpoint and can see why it isn't hard to have it

do not indicate any kind of credit for either position - state them as they are, and your evidence should do the convincing

although difficult lends itself to offering much more insight into the motivations and thought processes of the opposition