English II Honors—February 10, 2016 Daily warm-up: Imagine that you, an American teenager, went out one night with some friends and vandalized a car and street signs. Imagine then that you are arrested by the police. – What do you expect your punishment would be? – How do you think justice would best be served? – What is the attitude in your family towards vandalism of this nature? In your school? In your community? – What happens when different cultures have varying perspectives on justice? What do you think might be the response to this kind of vandalism in another country? Homework: – Study for Lesson 9 and 10 Vocabulary Quiz (Friday). – Complete Monologue Reflection on Turnitin.com by Friday. – Reading Plus due Sunday at 11:59.

Lesson #9 Vocabulary pestilent—adj. destructive to life; deadly stagnation—n. a failure to progress, develop, or advance. disdain—n. the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one’s consideration or respect; contempt. pervade—v. to spread throughout impetuous—adj. acting or done quickly without thought or care flaunt—v. display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance sedate—adj. calm, dignified, unhurried curtail—v. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on solace—n. comfort or consolation in a time of distress or sadness alluring—adj. powerfully and mysteriously attractive or fascinating; seductive

Lesson #10 Vocabulary periphery—n. the outer limits or edge of an area or object traumatic—adj. emotionally disturbing or distressing anachronism—n. a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned. euthanasia—n. the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries. genealogy—n. a line of descent traced continuously from an ancestor. psychopath—n. a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior anthropomorphic—adj. having human characteristics hypodermic—n. a hypodermic syringe or injection hierarchy—n. a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority dehydration—n. excessive loss of water from the body or from an organ or body part, as from illness or fluid deprivation

Rubric—Exemplary Scoring Criteria Exemplary IdeasThe argument skillfully presents a claim and provides background and a clear explanation of the issue; synthesizes evidence from a variety of sources that strongly support the claim; summarizes and refutes counterclaims with relevant reasoning and clear evidence; concludes by clearly summarizing the main points and reinforcing the claim StructureThe argument follows a logical progression of ideas that establish relationships between the essential elements of hook, claim, evidence, counterclaims, and conclusion; links main points with effective transitions that establish coherence Language Use The argument uses a formal style and tone appropriate to the audience and purpose; smoothly integrates textual evidence from multiple sources, with correct citations; shows excellent command of standard English capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar, and usage.

Unit 2 Embedded Assessment 2— Creating an Argument Your assignment is to develop an argument about an issue that resonates across cultures. You will choose a position, target audience, and create an oral presentation to convey your argument to a wide audience. Skills and Knowledge – Research to support a claim. – Create an organization that shows a clear relationship among claim, counterclaim, reasons, and evidence. – Include transitional words, phrases, and clauses to clarify and connect ideas. – Establish and maintain a formal style.

The Structure of an Argument The Hook – The hook grab’s the reader’s attention. – It often establishes a connection between reader and writer and provides background information. – It can be, but is not limited to, an anecdote, an image, a definition, or a quotation. The Claim – The claim comes in the opening section of your paper. – It states your belief and what you wish to argue. – It can be straightforward and clear, for example, “I believe that...” Support: Reasons and Evidence – Your support is the reasoning behind your argument. – You provide supporting evidence for your claim (data, quotes, anecdotes, and so on) and use support to create logical appeals. Counterclaims: Concessions and refutations – A concession recognizes the arguments made by the other side. – A concession builds your credibility by objectively discussing the other side and granting that the other side has some validity. – Following the concession, a refutation argues at length against the opposing viewpoint by proving your side has MORE validity. Concluding Statement – A concluding statement draws your argument to a close, restates your claim, and makes a final appeal. – Avoid repeating information, but sum up your argument with a few final facts and appeals.

Types of Evidence Facts & Statistics - Numbers from surveys, studies, or observation, as well as pieces of commonly accepted information Analogy – Comparison between two things to support conclusions about one based on similarities to another Personal Experience/Anecdote - True story that describes a person’s experience relative to the topic Illustrative Example - Description of a specific example to support the validity of a generalization Expert/Personal Testimony - Use of a person’s words to support a claim, whether the person is like the audience or an expert Hypothetical Case - Use of a possible scenario to challenge the audience to consider the claim

Analyzing an Argument 1. What is the hook? 2. What is the writer's main idea or thesis? 3. What seems to be the writer's purpose in writing this essay? 4. List the reasons the writer gives in support of his or her thesis. 5. Are these reasons convincing? Why or why not? This question refers to the logic or appeal of the reasons. 6. Give examples of the evidence the writer presents in support of his or her reasons. Explain the kind of support it seems to be, I.e. example, facts, quotes from experts, comparisons, process analysis, cause-effect, scenario. 7. How convincing is the evidence presented? Is it pertinent? Reliable? Sufficient? Is it slanted or biased? 8. Does the writer acknowledge views about the subject that are different from his or her own (concessions)? Where? What is the writer’s attitude toward those who hold different views? Does the writer try to understand those views or does he or she refute them? 9. What is the writer’s call to action?

Michael Fay

Time to Assert American Values— Vocabulary sophistry—false or misleading argument (paragraph 1) marginalize—treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant (paragraph 1) dissidents—people who oppose official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state (paragraph 3) pilferage—theft (paragraph 4) propagation—the spreading of something, dissemination (paragraph 5) dictate—lay down authoritatively; prescribe (paragraph 6) exhort—strongly encourage or urge (someone) to do something (paragraph 6) subsidiaries—companies controlled by a holding company (paragraph 7) clemency—mercy; lenience (paragraph 8)

Analyzing an Argument— Time to Assert American Values 1. What is the hook? – The writer begins the essay by discussing a controversial case covered in the media—the caning of Michael Fay. In the first paragraph he states, “Singapore’s founding leader, Lee Kuan Yew, returned to a favorite theme yesterday in defending the threatened caning of Michael Fay.” 2. What is the writer's main idea or thesis? – The writer’s main idea or thesis is that “Americans concerned with the propagation of traditional values at home should be equally energetic in asserting constitutional principles in the international context of ideas” (paragraph 5). In other words, the individual liberties over the rights of the state are values worth fighting for on the world stage because they assert the worth of each person to prevent the violence and brutality of human rights violations in the name of social order. 3. What seems to be the writer's purpose in writing this essay? – The writer’s purpose is to urge his reader’s to spread American values to other countries, and the way to do this is through political and economic pressure.

4. List the reasons the writer gives in support of his or her thesis. – The writer suggests that the voices of the citizens who speak out against the government are just as important as the government who creates laws to suppress individual liberties. – He also suggests that the Michael Fay case gives dissidents a chance to speak out against cruel and unusual punishments—it gives them a precedent (paragraph 5). 5. Are these reasons convincing? Why or why not? This question refers to the logic or appeal of the reasons. – These reasons are only convincing to those readers who believe in the rights of the individual over the good of society. The writer’s intended audience is American political leaders and American corporations, so if they believe in these values, then his reasoning is convincing. 6. Give examples of the evidence the writer presents in support of his or her reasons. Explain the kind of support it seems to be. – The writer uses the analogy of the founders of our country fleeing England to avoid harsh punishments for minor crimes to compare to the treatment that Michael Fay is receiving in Singapore. – He says President Clinton provided a sound example when he called for a pardon. This could be considered expert testimony even though it is an indirect quote.

7. How convincing is the evidence presented? Is it pertinent? Reliable? Sufficient? Is it slanted or biased? – The evidence is pertinent to his argument since the issue is about an American’s individual liberties being violated. – The evidence is reliable since the writer is using examples that most American citizens are aware of. – The writer could probably use more evidence, but considering this is a newspaper editorial, he has to get directly to the point (editorials are usually only 400 words) – The evidence is slightly slanted and biased considering the writer is trying to appeal to emotions rather than logic. He uses words such as “deemed more important” “rationalize abuses” “marginalize courageous people who campaign for causes like due process and freedom from torture”—notice the use of parallel structure (a rhetorical device) and the use of alliteration (figurative language which appeals to emotions). 8. Does the writer acknowledge views about the subject that are different from his or her own (concessions)? Where? What is the writer’s attitude toward those who hold different views? Does the writer try to understand those views or does he or she refute them? – The writer acknowledges that Singaporeans believe that Americans think their values are superior to other cultures in paragraph 2. His attitude is clearly condescending towards these views. He automatically refutes this viewpoint in paragraph 3—”There is a clear problem with this argument.” 9. What is the writer’s call to action? – The writer’s call to action is that political leaders and companies that do business in Singapore are to put pressure on the Singaporean government to show mercy to Michael Fay.

Analyzing an Argument 1. What is the hook? 2. What is the writer's main idea or thesis? 3. What seems to be the writer's purpose in writing this essay? 4. List the reasons the writer gives in support of his or her thesis. 5. Are these reasons convincing? Why or why not? This question refers to the logic or appeal of the reasons. 6. Give examples of the evidence the writer presents in support of his or her reasons. Explain the kind of support it seems to be, I.e. example, facts, quotes from experts, comparisons, process analysis, cause-effect, scenario. 7. How convincing is the evidence presented? Is it pertinent? Reliable? Sufficient? Is it slanted or biased? 8. Does the writer acknowledge views about the subject that are different from his or her own (concessions)? Where? What is the writer’s attitude toward those who hold different views? Does the writer try to understand those views or does he or she refute them? 9. What is the writer’s call to action?