ONLY FOR MAESTRO

Examples

Thompson claims that writing improves memory. This is known as the “generation effect.” He states that this is a trick that has been used for years. “College students have harnessed this effect for decades as a study technique: if you force yourself to jot down what you know, you’re better able to retain the material.” Thompson cites a study from 1978 conducted by two psychologists where they compared how well the subjects remembered words that they either wrote down or that they didn’t. Those who wrote down the words retained more information. In talking about the study, he used an authoritative quote that explains how writing “requires more cognitive effort than reading” which in turns helps the memory. Thompson works to build ethos with his audience by talking about the psychological study and also by relating it to something they might remember—studying for tests. He also appeals to logos by helping to lead the reader to the conclusion that writing does improve memory by explaining how our brain processes information, proving it with a formally conducted study. This helps further his overall argument that writing does change our cognitive behavior, as he does prove that writing improves memory, which is a clear change in the brain’s function.

Problems: Not properly using the quotation sandwich. Boring, choppy sentences. Not talking about how old the study is a possible problem. Not mentioning that the study is quite vague (where was it conducted, how many subjects were involved, was it followed up later). How much does the study really build ethos? Could use more analysis. What else??

Example 2:

Beyond his claims of individual growth in writing through public thinking, Thompson examines the ways in which having access to larger audiences is actually progressing efficient discovery and even saving lives. In his exploration of the theory of multiples, Thompson claims that “Failed networks kill ideas, but successful ones trigger them” (61). He supports this bold claim by presenting a number of scenarios in which a lack of efficient communication between people caused delay to discovery, or even, in the worst case, cost millions of people their lives. Perhaps his most effective evidence comes in the form of a historical anecdote in which he tells the history of the discovery of penicillin. While the earliest record of a penicillin-like medicine was discovered in 1890, the founder, one Ernest Duchesne, was unknown and without the connections to propel his discovery into the public eye. Because of this, his finding went unknown and the world waited another 32 years for Alexander Fleming to discover the life-saving medicine we still use today (Thompson 61). Thompson asserts that the millions of people who died in the 34 years that passed before penicillin was rediscovered, died because the public at the time was unable to connect. Had Duchesne been able to share his findings with the appropriate people, perhaps the course of modern medicine would have turned three decades earlier. The implication here is that with our modern ability to connect and access peers and leaders around the globe, we have a better opportunity to propel our own discoveries forward. By presenting the worst-case scenario, in which our lack of ability to connect causes death, Thompson is able to present a critical case for his argument. We do not have the time to wait between connections, because our literal lives may depend on it. Through a simple history lesson, Thompson is able to appeal to his readers’ fears and mold them into a fear of not being able to connect. He makes the ability to think publicly a necessity. A subtle and mild manipulation of fear, this technique is effective in creating urgency and need for connection. Thompson requires his readers to consider a world in which we the people, rather than developing the same ideas in different places, grow ideas further, together. Comment by Blaine: Topic Sentence Comment by Blaine: Direct quote to show the claim Comment by Blaine: Identifying and incorporating evidence Comment by Blaine: Begins STAR

COnclusion

Your conclusion, which evaluates some aspect of the text, and tells us “So What?”

· What is the significance of the argument – why does it matter (at this moment/to you/in general)?

· Has the author impacted your thinking/views on this topic? If so, in what way?

· Consider the effectiveness of the argument – focus on a key strength or weaknesses

Example

In conclusion, Thompson delivers his argument by using anecdotes, facts and statistics.  His claims are well supported with evidence; however, the evidence is insufficient and suspect to interpretation, weakening his overall argument.  The anecdotes are used to encourage a connection between the reader and the topic; however, counterarguments are not considered.  His use of the rhetorical strategy pathos overwhelms his use of logos, canceling each other out.  Whether or not the internet improves memorization, creativity, and cognition has not been sufficiently researched and studied.  More research is needed.  There are many factors that Thompson does not consider such as age.  How does internet use harm or help the brain of a child?  Even though Thompson fails to consider all possible interpretations of the evidences he presents, he does introduce valid points.  His novel is for the common reader, giving people a glimpse into the expansive ways in which technology and the internet has taken hold of our lives.  “Public Thinking” is significant because it allows the everyday reader into a conversation about the implications of technology, which may lead to a worldwide embrace of the advances yet to come; however, with Thompson’s one-sided view, one can only hope that those opposed to technology will join the conversation and the research and debate can take on a more significant, logical appeal.

And in conclusion, everyday we encounter messages being sent on social media--email, Facebook status, tweets, blog posts, etc. These sites help people publicly express their emotions and thoughts, which has a positive effect on everyday life. Readers of Thompson's text can see how writing online leads to thinking in public, which helps us recognize our feelings and thoughts that we cannot tackle alone as well as clarify our thoughts. But people also realize through Thompson that social online writing has public thinking and is beneficial to many people, which is what he argues. 

After examining “Public Thinking” and evaluating the rhetorical moves made by Thompson, I think his argument is one that has support and strength. I believe that technology has always been around and will continue to make changes on our daily lives. We will keep thinking of new ways to take advantage of these changes and colonize these new digital tools in the way that Thompson shows us. To some there have been arguments on whether this internet has been beneficial or detrimental for us. Sometimes Thompson is convincing that social media is changing us. Sometimes Thompson is not so convincing. But in the end, I think believe that Thompson is convincing because he uses evidence and rhetorical strategies.