Feedback Not Yet Mastered 06/14/21 HiLarry!I’m Anne, one of the instructors for this course, and I reviewed your project. Your project is not yet mastered, but you’ve created a good first draft,and...

Feedback

Not Yet Mastered

06/14/21

HiLarry!I’m Anne, one of the instructors for this course, and I reviewed your project. Your project is not yet mastered, but you’ve created a good first draft,and we will discuss how to make it even better. As you will see from the rubric score, you already have mastered two areas of this difficult project.

The area in which your essay requires most revision is in describing deductive and inductive argumentation. On the rubric dated 06/14/21, I discuss these two approaches in some detail.

I urge you to revise your discussion according to a structure in which you address each of the rubric areas one at a time.

· The introductory section is where you will discuss the material related to the first two rubric items. In this section, you will be using some of the knowledge you gained from your survey of the materials about fracking. Begin with a paragraph that states what fracking is and that notes the various claims made about the process, both the claims in favor and the claims against the process. This introductory section is the place in which you’ll be clarifying for your reader (“Sy Bill Wright”) the background and general situation.

· Contrary to what the project rubric implies, you do not need to label any of these claims as true or false yet—in other words, you do not need assert that some are misconceptions. Rather, you can simply state that there exist a number of conceptions about what fracking is and what it does, and that determining which conceptions are true and which are false is a difficult task that you hope your essay will make easier for the reader. Don’t use those exact words, of course.

· This section also is where you will be explaining the elements in the overall argument. In fact, after you have stated what fracking is, you could even write something like, “Those in favor of fracking argue that…” and follow up with statements of the major claims—the premises—made by those who favor fracking. Your next statement could begin along the lines of, “On the other hand, opponents of fracking assert that…” followed by stating the major premises of the anti-fracking position. For the information in this introduction, you will be drawing upon what you’ve learned from reading the variety of resources provided for the project, and you will need to cite the source for each piece of information you use.

· It might require an additional paragraph to explain the premises used by fracking proponents and opponents in the overall argument, and that’s alright. By the time you finish this introductory section, whether it takes one, two, or three paragraphs, you will have had the opportunity to address sufficiently the first two elements of the project rubric.

· Now you will be ready to address the two project resources that clearly contain attempts at making actual, specific arguments: the pro-fracking article by Nicolas Loris and the anti-fracking article by Gina M. Angiola. One of those articles is structured as a deductive argument, while the other is structured as an inductive argument. State which is which, and explain why/how each argument is deductive or inductive. You can begin with a sentence something like, “[So-and-so], who writes in favor of fracking, makes an argument that is fundamentally [deductive/inductive]” or “[So-and-so] makes [a/an] [deductive/inductive] argument [in support of/opposed to] fracking.”

· Again, you don’t have to use those specific words—in fact, please do not! Rather, phrase the sentences so that they sound like your writing, not like mine.

· It will take you at least one paragraph per article to explain the type of reasoning being used, address the evidence the writer provides, and assess whether (and how) the deductive argument is valid and the inductive argument is strong. This assessment will include noting any logical fallacies present. (Nicolas Loris’s argument, in particular, leans heavily on fallacious reasoning.)

· In the conclusion of the paper, you can make whatever recommendation(s) you think appropriate for the reader.

For more specific information about these items, please see my detailed comments on the rubric dated 06/14/21.

I genuinely look forward to reading your revised essay. :)

Best regards,

Anne