2. 10.24/10.25 Tue/Wed warm-up: sinners! activity 1: so logical thesis?
activity 2: synthesis notes
activity 3: synthesis practice
close: debrief the sources
HW DUE:
Outline (don’t turn in; on desk with grad paper checklist)
“Sinners in the Hands” tracked as “Sinners”
HW Tonight: Corn-Ponin’!
Upcoming:
10.24/10.25: outline due
10.26/10.27: Synth FRQ (formally scored)
10.31/11.1: vocab. 3 due
11.2/11.3: first rough draft due
11.8/11.9: Grammar 2 (diction) due
11.15/11.16: TY4A pt. 2 due
11.15/11.16: Argumentation mid-unit test
11.17/11.20: vocab. 4 due
5.16: AP Lang test

3. 10.24/10.25 housekeeping: rough draft
It’s due 11.2/11.3.
You’ll get your outlines back 10.31/11.1.
That’s not much time for a turnaround!
You should be working on your rough drafts without any feedback from me regarding your outlines.
Here’s what I expect to see in those rough drafts.

4. 10.24/10.25 housekeeping: rough draft
Intro w/ thesis (1-2 paragraphs)
Background/expository information (2-4 paragraphs)
3 pages minimum (just getting to the third page should be enough)
MLA format
Working bib included (sources consulted thus far)
Hard copy and turnitin.com submission

5. 10.24/10.25 activity: debriefing “Sinners”
So a modern audience probably has a problem with Edwards’ view of spirituality.
For example . . .

6. 10.24/10.25 activity: debriefing “Sinners”
If you take out the hostile tone, the anger, remove your own feelings from what he’s saying, is his argument flawed?

7. 10.24/10.25 activity: debriefing “Sinners”
Who was Jonathan Edwards? Did he have the ethos necessary to chastise his audience as he did?
Explain the analogy that Edwards uses to open his sermon.
Par. 2 (lines 3-8) clearly identifies Edwards’ audience. Who are they?
Explain Edwards’ use of description in par. 3 (9-13). What effect is it intended to have? How would you describe his, um, description?
Let’s play a grammar game: What is the subject for the predicate “abhors” (22)?
Can we talk about hyperbole some? Probably.
Ok. Explain the logic of Edwards’ message. Syllogism, enthymeme or Toulmin model (claim, grounds, warrant) (claim, “because” statement, “since” statement).

8. 10.24/10.25 notes: logic!
Logical?
MAJOR: All sinners are disliked/punished by God.
MINOR: You are a sinner.
CONCLUSION: Therefore God dislikes/will punish you. Bummer.
Enthymeme: God will punish you because you’re a sinner.
With a warrant: God will punish you because you’re a sinner and since you don’t want to be punished you must do the things you need to do in order to make God happy. Hooray!
Can you apply the same logic to your thesis in your grad paper.

9. 10.24/10.25 notes: logic! Let’s look again at Molly’s thesis:
Therefore, schools should prioritize and expand foreign language programs so high school students can experience the bilingual advantage of cognitive growth, academic success and delay of degenerative memory diseases.
MAJOR: A goal of all schools is to improve a student’s level of education.
MINOR: Foreign language education has many salubrious effects on students’ education.
THEREFORE: Socrates is mortal.
ENTHYMEME: Schools should teach foreign language because it improves students’ education.
WITH WARRANT: Schools should teach foreign language because it improves students’ education since schools care about improving their students’ futures.
Now you do it with yours. Is your thesis logical? Write it out on your outline.

10. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
“To synthesize” means is to take disparate elements and combine them into one whole.
THIS IS THE MOST COMMON FORM OF WRITING IN COLLEGE. Most of what you do (outside of like literary analysis which is stupid) in every form of writing is synthesis
And usually it’s synthesis of the argumentative variety (even if, on the surface, it doesn’t seem like argumentation).
You take the sources you are given in the synthesis prompt, and synthesize them into a cogent argument of your own design.

11. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro Here’s the basic drill:
You are given a brief description of the issue.
You are then presented with (typically) seven sources, at least one of which is always visual.
You then write an argumentative essay that incorporates and synthesizes at least three of the sources in support of your position on the topic.
The topic, by the way, is usually something about which you will not care or haven’t thought much about. For example . . .

12. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
Synthesize information from at least three sources and incorporate it into a coherent, well-developed argument for your own position on whether your school should establish, maintain, revise or eliminate an honor code or honor system.
Hooray?

13. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
PROMPT: Synthesize information from at least three sources and incorporate it into a coherent, well-developed argument for your own position on whether your school should establish, maintain, revise or eliminate an honor code or honor system.
You should use the “sources in constructing [your] own independent argument.”
AP specifically wants you to focus on your school but use the sources to help support your argument.
By the way, is this forensic, demonstrative or deliberative?

14. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
For this essay, students were directed to tailor their responses for “their own schools.” First person evidence observations, thus, were appropriate. This is not always the case.
The best essays were synthetic (duh?) but also demonstrated “responsive reading.”
This means that students are able to “discern a conversation among the sources” and “enter that conversation themselves.”
This means that you can acknowledge “others’ answers” and weigh in “on the question from one’s own considered perspective.”
Further, high scoring essays went “beyond repetition of the same type of evidence in support of a single claim.”

15. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
Mid-tier essays “tended to consult their own existing beliefs and then selectively draw support for those beliefs from the sources.”
Or “they would consult the sources and then draw the argument from them.”
Yikes. What does this mean?
Don’t have your thesis stated before you read the sources.
Use the sources to guide you to your thesis.
Enter into a conversation with the sources.
Remember, the sources are not “unquestioned” facts. You can deliberate with them.

16. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
Low-ranging essays tended to “quote” sources rather than use them.
What does that mean?
“In source A, it states that ”

17. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
Take a clear stance. There is no room for qualification here.
Make sure, in other words, you decidedly express what should be done to fix the honor code.
High scoring essays go beyond “repetition of claims” made in the sources.
Successful essays use “the sources in a variety of ways, all with an eye toward developing [your] own argument.” (Have I repeated that enough now?)

18. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro Your argument is based on the sources.
You are required to synthesize the sources.
You’re not merely paraphrasing or quoting. Just quoting using a source is not really synthesizing.
Remember, it is your argument. The sources provide supporting information, perspectives, viewpoints so that you can make your point.

19. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
The basic structure for your essay is argumentation.
You should probably still be using Toulmin model for your BPs.
You don’t have a whole lot of time to write background or much in the way of introduction.
Focus on your BPs and how you synth information from the sources in those BPs to create an argument.

20. 10.24/10.25 notes: Synth intro
Now College Board recommends (and used to require) a 15-minute reading period during which you, um, just read (I sort of backed myself into a corner with that sentence).
This reading period should be, ideally, used for all three FRQs.
So I think you should be able to read the synth in 10 minutes, and that’s what I’m giving you. (I’ll give you 50 minutes in class to do the whole thing all together.)

21. 10.24/10.25 activity: Synth debrief
THESIS 1: “Honor codes should in fact be implemented because they promote a healthy academic environment, they statistically lower the percentage of the academic dishonesty is schools and they are adaptable to fit any school environment.”
THESIS 2: “Though the official ‘Honor Code’ ideal has been enforced in schools for 17 years (Source B), its core principles are those that have been idealized for thousands of years. Honesty is a trait that has well lived out the existence of high school itself. It’s an idea of common decency and a portrayal of good character than it is ‘another rule to obey’ (Source B).”
THESIS 3: “The honor system at my school should be maintained because of its fairness to students while also punishing them for their actions simultaneously.”

22. 10.24/10.25 close: Synth debrief SOURCE A
What is Bacall implying about honor codes? Does he think they are effective?
Is Bacall for or against cheating? Is it clear?
SOURCE B
Source B is from a student’s account of honor code. Does that make any difference?
The opening paragraph addresses the old adage “snitches get stitches.” Is this a valid concern for you in upholding an honor code? Is this applicable to your experiences with AK’s honor code?
Do you think a “pledge of honor,” regardless of the frequency with which it is implemented, is effective? Why or why not?
What type of “environment” do honor codes create? Any?
Would you feel more of a buy-in to any honor code which you had a hand in drafting?

23. 10.24/10.25 close: Synth debrief SOURCE C
Are you, like the kids from Hampden-Sydney College, skeptical that a piece of paper can keep someone from cheating?
Why do Hampden and Sydney bring up McCabe? How does this inclusion of expert testimony advance their claim (don’t just say “ethos”)?
Would an “all student court” be successful here at AK?
How does an institution create a “ ‘culture of academic integrity’ ”?
Explain the concept of a “feedback loop” of integrity. What is a possible peril of the feedback loop?

24. SOURCE D
The professor (Bloomfield) interviewed in this piece describes how he wasn’t surprised his students had cheated because he has a “ ‘large class.’ ” Is this something to keep in mind when devising an Honor Code for your school?
Can we rely on historical precedent to insure the implementation of an Honor Code? I’m guessing your answer is “no” now.
It feels like a cop out. “The Internet provides an inexhaustible source of information.” How do you account for this in your Honor Code
SOURCE E
15. What is the most important data in this chart for you?
SOURCE F
Wait a second. Students view “high school as simply an annoying obstacle.” What??? That’s not true. Pfffft. Stupid none data.
What are some potential problems with the “everyone else is doing it” justification for cheating? How would you address this type of justification in an Honor Code at your school?
This source talks about “active dialogue” between faculty and students in creating an honor code. It’s not the first time we’ve had this discussed in these sources. Is it really that important? Do you believe it would foster a more honest academic environment?
I have to assume, at this point, if you thesis does not somehow discuss building a “peer culture” before drafting and implementing an Honor Code, then you have failed to read the sources correctly.

25. CLOSE and HW 10.24/10.25 HW: CLOSE:
Read “Corn Pone Opinions” by Mark Twain.
Complete all the activities!
Due Tuesday/Wednesday next week! What???
But you need to have it read by next class in order to complete an activity with it. Hooray!
CLOSE:
Fire drill? Probably Friday.
Synth FRQ next class. What you’ll need:
paper
pen
Corn pone? What?