Research Question, Thesis, and Outline

SAMPLE LAYOUT

Source Evaluation on “Salmon: Their Fight for Survival” by Anthony Netboy.

In my research paper I am arguing that there is a dire need for extra protection of wild salmon and steelhead on the west coast; particularly in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, where once very large wild fish stocks are dwindling near extinction. Hatcheries have helped slow the decline of these fisheries, but are not a substitute for truly wild fish. In my research I came across a book entitled “Salmon: Their Fight for Survival” by Anthony Netboy. I found this to be an unreliable source for my essay due to its broadness, its tendency toward bias,

the

inaccura

cy in information, and it

s age.

Commented [SL1]:

Good thesis. It explains your stance on

its

credibility a

nd the reasons

why yo

u believe it to be

unreliable.

Netboy’s book has several problems with it; the first of which being its broadness. I am looking for information about fisheries of the pacific coast. This book gives information on “[s]almon catches in Norway” (Netboy 152) and “[s]almon in Great Britain” (45) as well as some tidbits about pacific salmon catches, and some information about dams on the Columbia

River, however it was mostly things that were not backed up by another source. Commented [2]: See note below on organization.

Another problem I saw in this source is some of the way it was worded made it feel

biased and opinionated rather than presenting straight hard facts. For example; in one section they are talking about the decline of the California salmon fisheries. The language the author

uses seems biased in my eyes

. I agree with his opinion, but I’m not looking for an opinion, I’m

looking for facts.

Commented [3]:

Excellent point!

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II

SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II

SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

The fate of California’s salmon mirrors the state’s use and misuse of many of its natural resources. In the last half of the century a serene land of indefinetly varied landscapes… was invaded by hordes of people from the ends of America and abroad seeking riches...In the process rivers and watersheds were turned topsyturvy, farmlands were bulldozed and covered with towns, cities, and Cyclopean highways…Like other forms of aquatic life, many of the salmon became victims of this unparalleled destruction. (Netboy 235)

The use of several words and phrases, such as “hordes” and “this unparalleled destruction” say to me that he is using his own opinion and not fact, thereby making the source somewhat biased, and not very useful.

Also, in some of this work, there are tables, showing salmon catches in different regions. I noticed that the numbers are not matching up with some of my other research. I have records of fish counts from the Bonnevelle Dam on the Columbia River. According to the book there were 384,780 chinook salmon that passed through Bonnevelle Dam in 1970 (Netboy 548). However according to the records kept on the Columbia Basin Fisheires, only 314,032 chinook salmon were counted. This may seem a small difference to some but when one thinks of all the rivers and tributaries on the Columbia it adds up rather fast. 70,000 fish can be an entire river’s worth of fish for a season. This discrepancy only goes to show this as an unreliable source.

Commented [4]: This is a good point. In order to be truly helpful, a source should be comprised of facts trends. When there is bias, it can skew the information that is being presented.

Commented [5]: The organization of your paper could have been enhanced if this paragraph was placed after your second paragraph. That one ended with the statement that not all of the facts in the book were backed up another source. Could have been a good lead-in!

Commented [6]: Good use of another source to check validity!

The final problem with this source I found is the date of publication. It was originally published in 1974 by Houghton Mifflin. This source is over 30 years old. There are many more modern sources that have updated and more accurate information, along with research to back it up. For example the book “[t]he Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout” by Thomas P. Quinn has many tables and years worth of research gathered by the author himself and compared with other research that has been conducted. It was published in 2005, giving it a bit more relevance due to modern scientific research.

In conclusion, I have deemed this source as unhelpful and unreliable. An effective source should be relevant, recent, backed by research, and factual. This source has flaws with all four of those things, not to mention with the vast amount of information about specific parts of the globe that I am not arguing for in my argumentative essay. Although it contains some information that might help build background information on my topic, it will not be useful to me with my thesis

statement in mind.

Commented [7]:

Good concluding paragraph! Nice

summary of your

points from above.

Works Cited

1. Columbia Basin Fisheries and Tribes. “Annual Adult Salmon Totals” (04/22/2008): web (02/10/2010).

<http://www.fpc.org/adultsalmon/adultqueries/Adult_Annual_Totals_Query_Results.asp>.

2. Netboy, Antony. “The Salmon: Their Fight for Survival” Houghton Mifflin. (1974): 45, 152, 235, 548.

Print.

Reflection Questions:

1. What are some of the things you thought about when initially reading through this source? What types of questions do you ask yourself when it comes to evaluating the validity/reliability of a source?

I’ve learned that a good source to use for accurate research should be recent, reliable, and factual. Those are the main things that I considered throughout my analysis of the source.

2. How does this practice enhance your argumentative essay overall?

By making sure all of my sources are reliable, recent, and factual, I am able to strengthen my argument on this topic and back it up with factual evidence. An argument will be easy to debunk if it doesn’t have the data and facts to support it.