Home

Exit skills
Write well-organized, well-developed, effective, well-edited, logically sound, and clear essays.
Write effective, well-edited, well-organized research papers of 1,600 words minimum that apply appropriate and clear organizational strategies.
Objectives
Demonstrate effective use of prewriting strategies (outlining)
Contextualize quoted and/or paraphrased passages.
Write topic sentences that accurately express the main idea of the entry.
Write concession topic sentences that introduce divergent ideas using “although,” “though,” “even though,” or “while.”
Write well-organized and coherent entries that accurately explain what the quoted text means and why it matters.
Analyze or explain passages with illustration (explain the passages in a way that makes their main ideas more memorable or coherent). 
Write a counterargument and rebuttal that aligns with the concession topic sentence.
Demonstrate sentence variety and style, using such structures as FANBOYS, subordination, and concession.
Use appropriate college-level diction in writing.
Write a well-developed, clear, and original outline for a 3,000-5,000 word research paper.
Add appropriate popular and/or scholarly sources for each topic sentence in the outline.
Create source entries for each source on a Works Cited page.
Example
Here’s an example of what we’re looking for:
Working Thesis Statement (one sentence long): 
Although automakers have argued that a ban on conventional cars would put them out of business, and even though politicians claim there is no “political will” for the US to ban conventional cars, my position that the US should stop producing gasoline-powered automobiles is very reasonable given the dire state of our climate, our government’s ability to subsidize the transition to all-electric vehicles, and consumers’ growing demand for cleaner emissions.Topic Sentence #1 with clarification/expansion: 
Topic sentence w/concession and clarifying sentence: Although the future market for electric vehicles looks bright, some automakers inaccurately argue it will put them out of business. In other words, it’s a misconception that automakers who transition to electric fleets will go bottom up.
Say w/context: If it were easy to do and initial profits were high, automakers would have switched their conventional fleets to electric vehicles long ago, but that’s not the reality; the transition is slow, in part, because of “the high initial cost of manufacturing electric vehicles,” writes UC Davis researcher David Sperling in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (15).
Mean w/illustration: The keyword here is “Initial.” This means that the high costs won’t last forever; things will just be costly in the beginning. It is like rockets that appear to be barely lifting off the ground until their momentum gets going, and then that initial investment of energy really starts to move things along.
Say w/context: General Motors President expands on this point of long-term gains: “we believe ultimately that the whole world will go that direction” (Bradsher qtd. in Sperling 11).
Mean w/illustration: Given GM’s President predicts that the future of transportation is electric, it seems reasonable that other manufacturers of conventional cars likely feel the same kind of pressure, then one could argue that delaying the transition could actually prove fatal to automakers. It’s like they’re looking into their crystal ball, and the crystal ball is actually quite clearly telling them it makes sense to transition their fleets. It’s noteworthy that this prediction is coming from an established American manufacturer of conventional cars. It’s not like a member of the Chicago Bulls predicting they’ll win the next playoff game; instead, it’s like an adversary of the Bulls predicting the Bulls will win the next playoff game. It reveals a giant of the American automobile manufacturing sector has come to terms with their new reality.
Say w/context: Moreover, it appears that the “high initial cost” may not be as steep as one might think given many conventional cars’ electrical components are already sufficiently advanced: “Although today’s automakers are weighed down by the legacy of 100 years of internal combustion engines and mechanical engineering designs, they are well along in converting the car’s infrastructure to electronic controls” (Sperling 13).
Mean w/illustration: In other words, automakers who choose to transition to electric fleets don’t need to reinvent the proverbial “wheel” to do so. That is, there’s already a foundation for the transition to occur; the “rocket” is not cemented to the launchpad.
Counterargument and rebuttal (turn against and turn back): Yes, it will be costly, but that’s part of doing business; a good business will inevitably incur costs to stay competitive. We’ve seen it with lucrative corporations like Amazon, which is remarkably different from their 5-year-old selves–having branched out into new territory (web services, grocery stores), which at first is costly, but ultimately leads them to greater market shares in new arenas. This is what the promise of electric fleets holds for conventional automakers who can’t afford to get left behind selling outmoded car tech to a society that is always thirsting for the next new thing.
Matter: It is significant that high initial costs are not grounds for stalling EV expansion in the US. If this is true, then the term “cost” is even something worth challenging because it seems more accurate to call it an initial investment. Large investment entities who buy into the EV sector early, then, are going to see the largest earnings when things take off. Similarly, even small-scale individual investors could also benefit from early investment.
Topic Sentence #6: 
Topic sentence w/concession and clarification: While transitioning toward an overall reliance on renewable, green energy remains one of our best bets at mitigating the climate crisis, we may lack the required energy infrastructure to successfully transition to an all-electric automobile platform. In general, the achievement of a net zero carbon or emissions reality and existence is something that is probably unachievable in the immediate or, perhaps, even foreseeable future.
Say w/context: Poria Hasanpor Divshali and Bong Jun Choi, both part of the Department of Computer Science, State University of New York, as well as the Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, New York, discuss, in their article “Electrical Market Management Considering Power System Constraints in Smart Distribution Grids,” also published in the peer-reviewed journal energies, contemplating the rising demand of energy amplified by the climate crisis, growing fuel costs, outdated power system infrastructures, and new power generation technologies, how much of our electrical systems foundation was developed long ago when when “energy production was relatively cheap” (1) and that the recent changes in energy technology advancements have been steadily increasing people’s reliance on electrical energy by about 2% per year (1), resulting in the need for greater innovation, which, according to Hasanpor Divshali and Choi, can be seen in the creation of the smart grid (SG), which is itself an advancement over the microgrid (MG) (1). However, according to the authors, “[Smart Grid Distribution Generations] SDG still is in early stages of development and . . . there is no large commercial implementation of a complete SDG to date” (1).
Mean w/illustration: In effect, the authors are saying that the kind of technology we need to produce sustainable and renewable energy on a national or even international scale does not exist yet. This meaning is similar to that moment in Robert Zemeckis’ classic film Back to the Future in which Marty (played by Michael J. Fox) shares video footage of an older Dr. Emmett “Doc” Brown (played by Christopher Loyd) with the younger “Doc,” video footage that reveals the impossible scenario in which Marty finds himself as a teenager from 1985 stuck in 1955: they need 1.21 gigawatts to generate the required nuclear reaction to propel their Delorian to travel through time. While 1.21 gigawatts may be easier to come by today, it was beyond civilian reach in 1955 and even beyond general civilian comprehension in 1985, which is attested to by Marty’s reaction to Doc’s exclamation of “Great Scott!” when he replies, “What the hell is a gigawatt?” 
Counterargument and rebuttal (turn against and turn back): Despite our imminent need for a wide scale renewable energy infrastructure, something akin to the SDG platform about which Hasanpor Divshali and Choi write, the fact remains that what we need remains something we don’t yet possess. Nevertheless, possession is a matter of time even though ours is, arguably, limited; however, just as innovation is itself a product of time, we may discover ways in which to produce what we need when and where we need it, just as a bolt of lightning produces the 1.21 gigawatts unimaginable in 1955 to help Marty return to 1985, something not so far fetched when we consider the fact that it was a kite experiment that initially captured the promise of electricity from a bolt of lightning. In other words, a lack of infrastructure is not equivalent to a lack of a collective will determined to produce such an infrastructure. Therefore, our limitations today may and probably will dissipate as our urgencies and demands multiply tomorrow and beyond.
Matter: On the whole, then, the questions of feasibility, availability, probability, and acceptability, at least in terms of achievability, are less pivotal and impactful when compared to the need for innovation in the face of impossibility because, without innovation of the kind heretofore unattempted, the future itself may be rendered humanly impossible since the possibility of human life may become more and more questionable. Therefore, banking on availability principles is like waiting for just the right time to get on a train in order to arrive at just the intended moment, missing the bigger picture that is the destination itself. This distinction is important because our destination is what’s at stake; that is, without heretofore unseen innovation we are left without a train to anywhere because there may be nowhere left for us to go.
Works Cited

ESSAY # 1: Analysis of WALLS
Essay # 1 – Bias Versus Empathy from First-Hand Exposure (1,000 words minimum)  20 points.
DUE  May 24, 2024 (Open for Submission starting Week 6)
Texts: Jamil Zaki, The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World. Chapter 3: “Hatred Versus Contact.” 52-73 
Marcello Di Cintio, WALLS: Travels Along the Barricades. “A Nakba of Olives: The West Bank Wall.” 100-129.
Objective: To explain and evaluate contact theory by applying it to Marcello Di Cintio’s experience at The West Bank Wall.
Research: Closely analyze a chapter from WALLS and note of Di Cintio’s developing opinions.
Guiding Questions: In Di Cintio’s example, did exposure reinforce bias or produce empathy? What appeals to pathos were evident, and were they effective? Which supplemental appeals had greater impact–ethos (ethics) or logos (logic)? What factors may have influenced these results? 
Outcome: a well-developed essay of about 1,500 words (approx. 10 paragraphs) of original* writing, incorporating quotes and analysis as needed and a substantial amount of personal reflection. 
Process Description: Choose an encounter that Di Cintio writes about during his time in Palestine, and reflect on how he felt a the beginning, his evolving point of view, and his final position. Did contact end up reinforcing his biases or strengthening his empathy?
Formulate your answer in a thesis statement placed at the end of your introduction. Develop body paragraphs describing the contact and resulting empathy or antipathy. Use these paragraphs to support your thesis. Add body paragraphs about other rhetorical appeals (covered in Week 3) that contribute to the resulting attitude. End with a reflective conclusion. 
[Your Week 3 Module breaks down this process into 10 steps].