Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Week 3 – Discussion / Distinguishing Voices and Discerning Arguments
No unread r
Week 3 – Discussion / Distinguishing Voices and Discerning Arguments
No unread replies.No replies.
Overview
In Chapter 5, Graff & Birkenstein (2021) advise us to use “voice markers” so as to avoid “confusing your readers and help alert you to similar markers in the challenging texts you read” (p. 79). The goal of this writing exercise is to practice strategies that help you, as a writer, maintain clarity when distinguishing between multiple perspectives. You will also have the opportunity to practice inserting your “I Say” or whether you agree, disagree, or have mixed feelings about the arguments presented.
In the required reading for this discussion exercise, an article titled “North of Home: Obligations to Families of Undocumented Patients,” Fins and Real de Asúa (2019) present a case involving a patient who is an undocumented immigrant. Using textual evidence to support their positions, the authors present two differing viewpoints on the case and the obligations of healthcare providers in ethical situations involving cultural and relational complexities.
In addition to integrating textual evidence into their writing, scholars like Fin and Real de Asúa often rely on argumentation strategies to convey their point, particularly when discussing or writing about complex topics with no easy answers. You will see that Fin and Real de Asúa do this as well. There are several different ways that one can present or “argue” a particular position on a topic, such as:
simply representing or describing a viewpoint in a way that favors your own position on the topic,
directly endorsing or approving of a specific viewpoint that reflects your own position,
problematizing or drawing attention to what might be an overlooked fault in a view that contradicts your own, and
hypothesizing or assuming something to be true about a position, even if it is not.
Initial Post Directions
Read the case study and commentaries and then compare and contrast Fin’s conclusions with Real de Asúa’s.
Include your interpretation of how each author employs argumentation strategies and whether you think it is effective.
Provide one example of an argumentation strategy that Fin uses and one example that Real de Asúa uses.
Do not use a strategy more than once. In other words, if one example is “endorsing” a viewpoint, you should choose a second example that uses a different strategy.
When explaining whether you think their argumentation strategies are effective, use the “I Say” templates that Graff and Birkenstein use in Chapter 4 or the supplemental templates provided in the Writing Resources. You can also directly access those supplemental templates here: I SAY Templates.pdfDownload I SAY Templates.pdf
Response Posts
Respond to the initial posts of at least two peers in the discussion. Do you agree with their interpretation or explanation of Fin and Real de Asúa’s perspectives and argumentation strategies? Again, use the “I Say” templates in your responses, when appropriate.
Additional Guidance
Remember to compose and save your posts in Microsoft Word or similar before posting in the discussion.
Be sure to include in-text citation(s) in your work.
Initial posts should be a maximum of 500 words. Responses posts should be no more than 300 words each.
Thoroughly review the Discussion Instructions and Guidelines which outlines the guidelines for participating in online discussions within this course. It also provides important information regarding the criteria on which you will be evaluated and graded.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.