"They Say, I Say" Blog Post; 6 "And Yet"

 As a part of the Gerald Graffs' and Cathy Birkensteins' They Say, I Say, chapter five reviewed the ways in which authors and readers alike can properly distinguish the notion being pressed within the text. More specifically, how to address the perspective in which the author is taking in regards to a point. That said, the chapter provided both templates as well as hints as to determine how the typical writer goes about stating opinions and how to best decide their sources (or lack of). Additionally, we reviewed how while an opinion can be made known, it can also be done nonchalantly as to not raise an immediate objection to your premise. Finally, to properly utilize what was taught, we were instructed to take part in two exercises which reviewed the way in which the author signaled certain sources of writing and how our own writing could be made better by implementing these strategies. The latter of which, we would have to refer to a previous essay of our own to determine the way in which we can improve our works. Along with the second question we were given certain questions to keep in mind as to best decipher our work. Both exercises are explained in terms of context, listed, and given a conclusion within the answer below.

1.) As for our first prompt, we were instructed to review Julie Charlips' usage (or lack of) in regards to implementing clear yet effective writing techniques. Her passage, which covered social class inequality met much of the criteria which the chapter had advised. More specifically, she properly stated where the quote or a certain opinion at stake had formed. Additionally, she discussed why its' inclusion was vital to the continuation of what was soon to be her point. That premise, which was evident throughout her quotations, questions, and subtle opinions helped readers to not only understand her to take on the issue, currently class inequality but also permitted readers, including myself, to see how I've utilized such strategies before. For example, when Julie Charlip establishes credibility through her prior occupations, such as a newspaper reporter, she includes how she questioned others on the issue of the shrinking middle class. "I once asked a sociology professor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle class. Oh, it's not the middle-class that's disappearing, he said, but the working class"(Charlip). Throughout this relatively short excerpt of what was an exceptional piece of writing, Julie left subtle points throughout her writing which may go unnoticed to some; but, drastically improve coherency when properly deciphered. An example of such a clue is evident when she utilized words and phrases such as he thought, reported, and he said. Shortly after using phrases to properly include her resources, which in themselves have been justified through her prior experience, Julie Charlip went on to question the audience regarding class, the entire premise of the piece: "How do we define class? Is it an issue of values, lifestyle, taste? Is it the kind of work you do, your relationship to the means of production? Is it a matter of how much money you earn? Are we allowed to choose?" (Charlip). She then went on to rebuke any answer by alluding that regardless of what one individual may say, the middle class is different for another within a different realm of that class; hence, leading all definitions to be in some way challenged. 

2.) Regarding our second exercise, readers were to locate a paper of theirs, preferably written in an academic environment, and identify how we incorporated perspectives into our writing. That said, like I have in the past, I will refer to my first argumentative essay which was conducted in AP Seminar. Within that essay, while I have pointed out flaws, I'm confident in its' ability to adequately convey the notion that single-sex education is superior to that of co-educational. Nonetheless, to avoid a complete tangent, I found that my paper was well written. After reviewing it with some key questions in mind, I found that while I did adhere to each prompt, I question how well I did so. The questions which were to be reviewed throughout my paper were: 

a. How many perspectives do you engage? 

b. What other perspectives might you include? 

c. How do you distinguish your views from the other views you summarize? 

d. Do you use clear voice-signaling phrases? 

e. What options are available to you for clarifying who is saying what? 

f. Which of these options are best suited for this particular text? 

And while we weren't directed to answer each question directly, I referred to each part and reviewed what was done properly and what could be done in a more effective manner. In doing so, I found that in addition to citing who I'm receiving premises from,  I also incorporated my own objective view while including certain keywords that may allude to a limited opinion throughout the text. While it may seem as if throughout the paper that I didn't necessarily care, and that I was just stating others' views, I recognized that upon a deep reading of my paper, one could easily distinguish between my view and that of a neutral reader. As for which phrase or words are most adequately applied in my writing, I find that if I were exposed to the templates at an earlier time, I would likely refer to them more often throughout this paper. Instead, I often utilized phrases that expressed how severely some took single-sex schooling as opposed to my subtle opinion often mentioned through keywords that implied much more than what they were perceived to have meant by the casual reader. Words that I frequently used with knowledge of conveying a strong point include unique, environment, harmful, welfare, support, conflicts, and attentive. These words all withheld a stronger purpose, that being to highlight what my notion was referring to at that point in time. 

Works Cited

Graff, Gerald, et al. "They Say / I Say": the Moves That Matter in Academic Writing with Readings. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.

With that said, remain safe, and thank you for reading.