point out exact where the area of interest is for the reader, make it obvious

it's also important to consider how the text will read as a whole - there are templates for this too.

no argument; no position

there is an ideal medium between summarizing and offering views, not too much or little of either

the weight of your argument, again, is determined by yours grounds for it in opposition to another view, and it is thus useful to be able to accurately recall this view.

the reader is a spectator to a conversation you are having, in which you constantly check in with them to help them understand whats going on.

keeping on track with how the audience thinks, not leaving them in the dust

also just complete sentences that properly reference the central topic

review of the picture, a return to base for a short time, to 'come down and check the height'

remember, it is a conversation, not necessarily a monologue

or along similar lines, there is controversy where people believe there is none

cast doubt on a long-held belief

'my personal view aligns with the second of these 2'

this is a common error i make - going forward i ought to consider as many positions as possible before i fully commit to a claim.

the more position one considers, the better they will understand the subject

based on context of the substance

like the previous comment, i once said this but now i say that

or

while i see x, i also understand y, and each should be given proper consideration for what they are

not only they say, but "people" say, sometimes "we" say

and that she finds is annoying, which is also a widely held view

follows the same structure; they say i say

dramatic front piece

the issue: that orwell has a solution for problem where it is widely regarded that there is none

you're able to get straight to the disagreement without yourself having to explain everything from your point of view

although it might seem strong to begin with a thesis, the thesis only has weight if it is stated as an idea in relation to something else, name the opposing opinion.

at first, a run-down of the issues to be discussed.

the two form an axis around which the entire paper is written - the dichotomy is the point

I would characterize this as opening up a conversation to other viewers so that they can follow it while you engage in it.

show your audience early on why your writing matters

should have addressed controversy before like the cartoon

in sum, writing needs to be a conversation, and what is required is knowing and considering the opposing view and how it applies to your response

practicing will allow someone to engage more fluidly in discussions and arguments. to step in and step out as you please.

on their own, they might be 3rd grade level, but one has to already know how to implement them

the moves themselves are what differ from plagiarism

consider objections

1. state the controversy
2. guide it towards your argument
3. introduce a quote
4. explain what the quote means in your own words
5. explain your view
6. offer concessions
7. provide evidence

setting the stage: here is what people have been talking about, some say this and others say that, and this is what is means to be on one side of this - alternatively, although i agree in some areas, here is my view and why it is important

fully knowing about what you disagree with may help you discover more about it, and perhaps even some good parts that you agree with.

by not giving full credit to whatever you're opposing, you will look like you don't know what you're talking about.

although key, controversy itself should not be one's goal.

controversy is key, otherwise we won't really learn anything.

simply responding, given the context, can work too - you don't have to explicitly write "they say"

see last comment

even if the person you're responding to isn't anybody academically significant, it still helps to capture a broader idea of what you mean to portray.

what you see is the city trying to solve a problem - but it would have been much better if the city worked to fixed the root cause of this problem rather than the problem itself.

another way of framing it- "as opposed to what you might think at first..."

the difference between the two cartoons is that the man in the 2nd wants the audience to actually keep something in mind because of something he knows. He is responding to an issue that the audience didn't yet know they would encounter, so he tells them about it.

why do this? because whoever is reading your paper might not have read what you are responding to, and so if you were not to provide an opposing view, your reader won't know why you're motivated to write on such a topic.

it is a good idea to summarize the views of someone else in a manner that your readers (and that someone else) will understand - it is not enough to just state your opinion.

driving home the point that academic writing is a conversation, and that one's paper always depends on some problem or disagreement they have with other people.

the title of the book is the template that is the central focus in academic writing, in that to write a good paper, one. must not only assert their position, but also consider other opinions, often opposing ones, and answer to them as well.

while these templates do what they're supposed to, but to fully incorporate them, one must already have to be able to portray their ideas in a legible and coherent way.

these templates give an idea of what to think about and which questions to answer in ones writing - serving as these 'moves'

what this mastery of writing constitutes is not only the purveying of interesting ideas, but certain moves that the author has acquired over constantly reading and writing

mastering things means being able to execute them perfectly without even giving it much attention