C ONNECTING E VIDENCE TO A C LAIM : S TRATEGIES FOR A RGUMENT W RITING Jean Wolph Revised April 2015...

CONNECTING EVIDENCE TO A CLAIM:

STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT WRITING

Jean WolphRevised April 2015

Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Argument MINI-UNITEmphasis

# of Lessons

TOPICS TEXT SET RESPONSE TO READINGS ARGUMENTATIVE ELEMENTS AND SKILLS WRITING AN ARGUMENT

Texts: Genre Close reading strategies

Writing & talking to develop knowledge on

topic or issue

Argumentative Elements

ArgumentativeSkills

ProductDraft, Feedback, and Revise

Reflect

Assessing credibility of sources

7 Lessons

Recycling 5 readings (print )

Marking text

Reading for new evidence

Charting evidence

Analyzing evidence

Drafting a claim

3-column Argument Planner

PQP feedback

Use of sources:

• Illustrating• Authorizin

g• Countering

Entering Skills:• Scanning

texts for main ideas

Product: Multi-paragraph revised draft

• Prewriting/ Planning• Flashdraft using

argument planner and kernel essay framework

• Feedback• Revising to

authorize and counter

• Reflections

Days 1-3 Days 4-5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8

Guided Research: Students preview, read, annotate, and discuss articles

Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article

What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company

Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher

Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forming a Working Claim

Evaluating evidence

Connecting evidence to the claim

Flashdrafting (using kernel essay framework)

Study of ways to use source credibility: Authorizing

RevisingReflecting

Study of ways to use source credibility: Countering

RevisingReflectingPQP

Overview of the Mini-Unit

Writing Standards Emphasized in the Mini-Unit

Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.Support claim(s) with clear reasons and relevant evidence, using credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.

Conduct short research projects to answer a question, drawing on several sources.

Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources; assess the credibility of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and providing basic bibliographic information for sources.

Draw evidence from …informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.

Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of discipline-specific tasks, purposes, and audiences.

A Note to the Teacher

The texts in this mini-unit have been selected especially to help students easily discover issues that might allow them to counter evidence. Some are very dated. Others are biased.

While these texts can still be used to draft a short argument, you may prefer to have students use the sources in another mini-unit, Connecting Evidence to the Claim, which has a text set on recycling.

Illustrating | Use specific examples from the text to support the claim

Authorizing | Refer to an “expert” to support the claim

Countering | “Push back” against the text in some way (e.g., disagree with it, challenge something it says, or interpret it differently)

In this mini-unit, we’ll practice ways that writers use sources to develop their arguments:


We’ll also look at the credibility of our sources.• We’ll try to highlight what is credible

about sources that support our claims.

• We’ll try to “throw some shade”—to show why readers should not see the information as reliable—on sources that do not support our claims.







First, we’ll read articles (and excerpts) to help us understand the issues about RECYCLING. Why do some people support it? Why do others oppose it?







Which of these seem credible? Less credible?Why?


Seems credible because it’s balanced, but who or what is BUZZLE?

Seems less credible because it’s by the company and about the company; does agree with some other sources

Might seem credible because it’s by a college professor, but it’s quite out of date

Seems credible because it’s a governmental agency; it is charged with protecting our environment

May seem less credible because of its reputation, but science topics on Wikipedia are well vetted; does agree with some other sources






Which are informational? Which are opinion?



What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company (press releases tend to give one side—the side of the organization that sends out the release)



Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (informational)

Which are informational? Which are opinion?




Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (informational)

Read the informational articles first.


As you read, highlight the key words for reasons that are given to support recycling (+) and reasons that are used to oppose it (-).

Or use a 2-column chart to capture reasons to support recycling or oppose it.


Reasons to Support Recyling

Reasons to Oppose Recyling

Don’t highlight whole sentences!

Positive and Negative Effects of Recycling

Adapted from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/positive-and-negative-effects-of-recycling.html (8.2)

Recycling involves remanufacturing used material into useful products.

Recycling is the process of reclaiming waste materials for reuse. This helps conserve energy. It also saves natural resources. Plastic bottles, glass, and newspapers can be recycled to make useful items.

Here are some pros and cons of recycling.

What key words would you highlight?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/positive-and-negative-effects-of-recycling.html

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/positive-and-negative-effects-of-recycling.html

Recycling is the process of reclaiming waste materials for reuse. This helps conserve energy. It also saves natural resources. Plastic bottles, glass, and newspapers can be recycled to make useful items.

Here are some pros and cons of recycling.

++

Both pieces of evidence

are PRO recycling.

“+” means pro or for recycling.

Positive Effects of Recycling

Preserves the EnvironmentRecycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper. [Note: All of these facts are used to support the reason.]

By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste. Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the air we breathe clean.

What key words would you highlight?

+

Partner Work: Finish the article. Highlight reasons. Mark reasons for with “+” and reasons against with “-”

Saves EnergyRecycling aluminum and glass reduces our energy use. The energy to recycle aluminum cans is 95% less than the energy needed to make a new can. Recycling an aluminum can saves enough energy to power a TV set for 3 hours. The amount of energy saved by recycling a glass bottle will run a computer for 25 minutes.

Reduces PollutionPlastic waste causes soil and water pollution. Plastic recycling is an effective solution to this problem. In recycling, the plastic waste is recovered and reused.

Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces global warming. Recycling 35,116 tons of material is the same as taking 22,140 cars off the road. Recycling a ton of aluminum eliminates 12 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Lowers Carbon FootprintProcessing raw materials uses a lot of energy. Energy is used to extract and transport raw materials. Transportation uses fuels like diesel and gasoline. These fuels are the main source of green gas emissions. Recycling means less fuel is used. When less fuel is used, less carbon dioxide is released into the environment.

+

+

+

Partner Work: Finish the article. Highlight reasons. Mark reasons for with “+” and reasons against with “-”

Saves EnergyRecycling aluminum and glass reduces our energy use. The energy to recycle aluminum cans is 95% less than the energy needed to make a new can. Recycling an aluminum can saves enough energy to power a TV set for 3 hours. The amount of energy saved by recycling a glass bottle will run a computer for 25 minutes.

Reduces PollutionPlastic waste causes soil and water pollution. Plastic recycling is an effective solution to this problem. In recycling, the plastic waste is recovered and reused.

Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces global warming. Recycling 35,116 tons of material is the same as taking 22,140 cars off the road. Recycling a ton of aluminum eliminates 12 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Lowers Carbon FootprintProcessing raw materials uses a lot of energy. Energy is used to extract and transport raw materials. Transportation uses fuels like diesel and gasoline. These fuels are the main source of green gas emissions. Recycling means less fuel is used. When less fuel is used, less carbon dioxide is released into the environment.

+

+

+

Conserves Natural ResourcesRecycling saves our natural resources. Recycling a ton of steel saves about 2500 tons of iron ore. Making plastic uses up fossil fuels. About 17 million barrels of crude oil is used every year to make plastic in United States. By recycling plastics, several tons of fossil fuel are saved.

Reduces Landfill UseThe need for landfills will go down if recycling is increased. Landfills, where we dump our trash, are overflowing in many countries. People living near landfills can have health problems because of the pollution.

Adds JobsAbout 1.5 million new jobs will be created if we recycle 75% of our garbage. Now the U.S. recycles only 34% of its garbage.

Conserves Natural ResourcesRecycling saves our natural resources. Recycling a ton of steel saves about 2500 tons of iron ore. Making plastic uses up fossil fuels. About 17 million barrels of crude oil is used every year to make plastic in United States. By recycling plastics, several tons of fossil fuel are saved.

Reduces Landfill UseThe need for landfills will go down if recycling is increased. Landfills, where we dump our trash, are overflowing in many countries. People living near landfills can have health problems because of the pollution.

Adds JobsAbout 1.5 million new jobs will be created if we recycle 75% of our garbage. Now the U.S. recycles only 34% of its garbage.

Negative Effects of Recycling

Are there harmful effects of recycling? Water and Soil PollutionIf recycling sites are not managed well, harmful chemicals in the trash can mix into water and soil. This can hurt plants and fish in the streams and lakes. When chemicals mix with rainwater, a poisonous mixture called leachate is formed. Leachate can be very dangerous if it reaches our water supplies. CostPaper recycling can be expensive. Bleaching is required to make the paper reusable. Recycled paper is not always good quality. Plastic is difficult to recycle because there are so many different kinds of plastic. They have to be sorted carefully. You can’t combine different kinds of plastic.

HealthIn bleaching recycled paper, harsh chemicals are used that can cause health problems to workers.

Decide on a claim:Where do you stand on recycling?


[Who] should [do what] because [why].

Examples:

• Families should recycle their trash because it will improve the environment.

• Our town should not recycle because of the cost and the dangers involved.

Read the next two articles to look for NEW reasons, pro or con.




BENEFITS OF RECYCLINGAdapted from an article by the Environmental Protection AgencyRetrieved 3-3-15 from http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm 7.9 "Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we

separate, collect, process, market, and use

a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products.Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclables by buying and using these products.

Why Should We Recycle?Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators. Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the environment. Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials.

What Can We Recycle?Commonly recycled materials include:Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.) Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted). Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars). Aluminum (beverage containers). Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries). Used motor oil. Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).

Hint: Where will you

find REASONS

in this article?

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm

Recycling: Cost–benefit analysisRetrieved from Wikipedia, 3-3-15; adapted for classroom use 11.0

There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense.It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs.. The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over a million jobs.

Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling could save the city over $20 million.

Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute.

Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers pollution and reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and water supply. Recycling reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It reduces our use of resources, which in turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the environment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon emissions by 49 million metric tonnes in 2005.

Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas.

Mark only NEW

REASONS

you find, + or -

BENEFITS OF RECYCLINGAdapted from an article by the Environmental Protection AgencyRetrieved 3-3-15 from http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm 7.9 "Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we

separate, collect, process, market, and use

a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products.Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclables by buying and using these products.

Why Should We Recycle?Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators. Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the environment. Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials.

What Can We Recycle?Commonly recycled materials include:Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.) Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted). Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars). Aluminum (beverage containers). Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries). Used motor oil. Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).

New reasons

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebenefits.htm








Mark only NEW

REASONS

you find, + or -








NEW reasons



Underline key words and phrases that show their points of view.

Now read the opinion pieces.


What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space?Adapted from an article by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services (8.8)

James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc. Chartwell was one of the first U.S. companies to publish data about waste disposal needs.

In the 1980s, many groups said we were running out of places to put our trash. The scare led companies to build more landfills, however. In Thompson's opinion, there was never a shortage.

In 1991, Chartwell discovered the U.S. had enough working landfills for over 18 years. Thompson says this is more than enough to handle our needs.

According to Chartwell, the U.S. has landfill capacity for the next 18 years, even if no new facilities are built.

What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space?Adapted from an article by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services (8.8)

James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc. Chartwell was one of the first U.S. companies to publish data about waste disposal needs.

In the 1980s, many groups said we were running out of places to put our trash. The scare led companies to build more landfills, however. In Thompson's opinion, there was never a shortage.

In 1991, Chartwell discovered the U.S. had enough working landfills for over 18 years. Thompson says this is more than enough to handle our needs.

According to Chartwell, the U.S. has landfill capacity for the next 18 years, even if no new facilities are built.

The Mises Institute monthly

December 1995Volume 13, Number 12Retrieved 7-25-14 at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212 (6.2)

Don't Recycle: Throw It Away!adapted from an opinion piece by Roy E. Cordato

Many people think recycling is the right thing to do. Why? Their kids learn wrong facts in school. They use this misinformation to guilt their parents into recycling. One poll shows 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to recycle.

Parents, don’t feel bad! Throw that trash away. Don’t recycle trash you can’t get paid for. What kids are learning is based on liberal politics, not fact or science.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212

The Mises Institute monthly

December 1995Volume 13, Number 12Retrieved 7-25-14 at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212 (6.2)

Don't Recycle: Throw It Away!adapted from an opinion piece by Roy E. Cordato

Many people think recycling is the right thing to do. Why? Their kids learn wrong facts in school. They use this misinformation to guilt their parents into recycling. One poll shows 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to recycle.

Parents, don’t feel bad! Throw that trash away. Don’t recycle trash you can’t get paid for. What kids are learning is based on liberal politics, not fact or science.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212

One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public service" ad on Nickelodeon shows a city being buried in its own trash. This is typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical is American Education Publishing's 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth. In fact, there is no landfill shortage. All the solid waste for the next thousand years would take up only 44 miles of landfill. This is just .01% of the U.S. landspace.

How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Why not make new paper from old paper and save more trees from being cut down?

Because it doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If we suddenly stopped making bread from wheat, there would soon be less wheat in the world. Farmers would stop growing it. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would not grow but fall.

The same logic applies to paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would be fewer trees planted. About 87% of new trees are planted just to produce paper. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is the demand for paper in the U.S. that caused the number of trees to increase for the last 50 years. So if you want to increase the number of trees, don't recycle.

One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public service" ad on Nickelodeon shows a city being buried in its own trash. This is typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical is American Education Publishing's 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth. In fact, there is no landfill shortage. All the solid waste for the next thousand years would take up only 44 miles of landfill. This is just .01% of the U.S. landspace.

How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Why not make new paper from old paper and save more trees from being cut down?

Because it doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If we suddenly stopped making bread from wheat, there would soon be less wheat in the world. Farmers would stop growing it. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would not grow but fall.

The same logic applies to paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would be fewer trees planted. About 87% of new trees are planted just to produce paper. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is the demand for paper in the U.S. that caused the number of trees to increase for the last 50 years. So if you want to increase the number of trees, don't recycle.

Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad. Recycling doesn't save resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling. The exception is aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling.“

Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling process itself causes a lot of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached from the pages. This process generates toxic waste, as opposed to the harmless waste from just throwing the papers away.

Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups. This means more trucks on the road. These trucks generate more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City had to add two more pickups per week. Los Angeles had to double the number of trash trucks.

The recyclers want more than just recycling. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they conclude "has to be reduced."

Here is the real goal of the recycling gurus. They want to lower our standard of living. Unfortunately, it’s happening already in the many cities that bought expensive recycling plants. It’s lead to great waste, high taxes, and cash-strapped local governments.

Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. This holiday season, unwrap those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.

Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad. Recycling doesn't save resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling. The exception is aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling.“

Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling process itself causes a lot of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached from the pages. This process generates toxic waste, as opposed to the harmless waste from just throwing the papers away.

Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups. This means more trucks on the road. These trucks generate more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City had to add two more pickups per week. Los Angeles had to double the number of trash trucks.

The recyclers want more than just recycling. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they conclude "has to be reduced."

Here is the real goal of the recycling gurus. They want to lower our standard of living. Unfortunately, it’s happening already in the many cities that bought expensive recycling plants. It’s lead to great waste, high taxes, and cash-strapped local governments.

Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. This holiday season, unwrap those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.

EVIDENCE CHARTReasons to Recycle Reasons NOT to Recycle

Saves Energy Can Cause Pollution (leachate)

Saves Natural Resources (forests)

Chemicals Cause Health Problems

Creates Less Waste Can be Expensive

Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil)

Reduces Carbon Footprint

Reduces Landfill Use

Creates Jobs

What reasons did we find that support recycling?

EVIDENCE CHARTReasons to Recycle Reasons NOT to Recycle








Creates Jobs

Use the chart to find the best evidence for your claim.

EVIDENCE CHART

Reasons to Recycle Reasons NOT to Recycle








Creates Jobs

Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim?

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons to Support Recycling

Reasons to Recycle

Is this reason relevant to families?

Saves Energy Yes, because this leads to a better quality of life.


Yes, because families care about the future for their children and grandchildren.

Creates Less Waste Maybe not directly.


Yes, because this leads to a better quality of life.


Yes, because families care about the future for their children and grandchildren.


Maybe not directly.

Creates Jobs Maybe not, as most families probably won’t become part of the recycling industry.

Claim: Our families should recycle to save the environment.

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons to Support Recycling

Reasons to Recycle

Is this reason relevant to your claim?

Saves Energy


Creates Less Waste




Creates Jobs

Claim: ____________________

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons NOT to Support Recycling

Reasons NOT to Recycle

Is this reason relevant to families?

Can Cause Pollution (leachate) Yes, because pollution affects our quality of life


Not directly unless parents work in recycling.

Can be Expensive Yes, because costs may affect taxes

Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim?

Claim

Source:

Evidence Connection Outcome

Use the Planner to Select and Explain the Evidence that Best Supports Your Claim

Claim: Families should recycle because it improves our environment.

Source:

Evidence Connection Outcome

Hint: There will usually be MORE evidence than you can use. Pick the strongest reasons.


Preserves the EnvironmentRecycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper.


What important facts would you quote?


Preserves the EnvironmentRecycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper.


What important facts would you quote?

+

Flashdraft!

With your articles and 3-column chart in hand, use this framework to quickly write a draft of your argument.


Overview of the Issue

Some people say…

Other people say…

My claimand the most compelling

evidence that supports it

In the end, I say…

How can we explain the process we just used?

How will we apply it to our own research and argument writing?


HOW COULD WE USE AUTHORIZING TO ENHANCE OUR ARGUMENT?

Authorizing: Referring to an “expert” to support the claim

Get Ready to Revise!


Authorizing is a move in argument writing.

First, we select a compelling piece of evidence.

Then we identify the source of the evidence.

Finally, we show the importance of that source, if it is not obvious.


How is this writer using AUTHORIZING?


We should recycle our old electronics, says John Duncan, a research chemist at the University of Kentucky, because if we send them to the landfill, they release harmful, hazardous chemicals into the environment.

How is this writer using AUTHORIZING?


We should recycle our old electronics, says John Duncan, a research chemist at the University of Kentucky, because if we send them to the landfill, they release harmful, hazardous chemicals into the environment.

How are these writers using AUTHORIZING?

“James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc., one of the first companies in the country to actually collect and publish empirical data about waste disposal and projected needs. In 1991, his company discovered that, rather than running out of landfill space, the United States had enough working landfills for over 18 years at projected capacity, more than enough to handle expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services. Retrieved 7-26-14 from http://www.worldsweeper.com/Disposal/v6n2landfills.html.

According to the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008), a conservative think tank, increased regulation has eliminated many potential sites for landfills, straining our ability to dispose of waste.


How are these writers using AUTHORIZING?

“James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc., one of the first companies in the country to actually collect and publish empirical data about waste disposal and projected needs. In 1991, his company discovered that, rather than running out of landfill space, the United States had enough working landfills for over 18 years at projected capacity, more than enough to handle expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services. Retrieved 7-26-14 from http://www.worldsweeper.com/Disposal/v6n2landfills.html.

According to the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008), a conservative think tank, increased regulation has eliminated many potential sites for landfills, straining our ability to dispose of waste.


How might we change this passage to use AUTHORIZING?

“Never dump your used motor oil down the drain — the used oil from one oil change can contaminate one million gallons of fresh water.” —United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/recycle/how-do-i-recycle-common-recyclables#gla


http://www2.epa.gov/recycle/how-do-i-recycle-common-recyclables#gla



AUTHORIZING

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns to “[n]ever dump your used motor oil down the drain — the used oil from one oil change can contaminate one million gallons of fresh water.”


Try it:

Review your articles. Select 2-3 pieces of compelling evidence in which the source is clearly identified.

Think: Is the source reputable? In what ways is this person or agency an “expert”?


Next Steps: Authorize!

Then revise your draft to include this new text in which you use authorizing to enhance your argument.


Step

Step

Step


How will we apply it to our own research and argument writing in order to make a stronger connection between our evidence and our claim?


COULD WE COUNTER SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT OPPONENTS OF RECYCLING MIGHT OFFER?

Countering: “Pushing back” against the text in some way (e.g., disagreeing with it, challenging something it says, or interpreting it differently)

More Revision!


Countering is another move in argument writing.

First, we acknowledge a claim that is in opposition to ours.

Example: Others will argue that our school should NOT increase its recycling efforts.


Countering

Then, we identify evidence that our opponents might use to support their claim.

Example: Those who are against more recycling quote statistics that indicate there is no landfill shortage. They claim that “[i]f all the solid waste for the next thousand years were put into a single space, it would take up 44 miles of landfill, a mere .01% of the U.S. landspace.”—Cordato (1998)


Countering

Finally, we suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence:

Example: This statistic is extremely outdated, however. A quarter of a century ago, it was the best prediction of future landfill needs. More recent analyses, however, note the problem of increased regulation. These regulations have eliminated many potential sites for landfills, according to the Manhattan Institute , Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008).

We’re also

AUTHORIZING

here, as we

draw on

information

from a

recognized

authority, The

Manhattan

Institute.


• Acknowledge the other side’s claim:

• Note the evidence they are using that we want to refute:

• Suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence:

Choose a piece of evidence that you highlighted or put on your 2-column chart which does NOT support your claim.

PQP time


Next Steps: Return your draft

Then revise your original flashdraft to include this new text in which you counter their argument.


Step

Step

Step


How will we apply it to our own research in order to make a stronger connection between our evidence and our claim?


PQP PRAISE, QUESTION, POLISH

In pairs, review one another’s drafts, focusing on the use of credible sources to illustrate, authorize, and counter.

How well has the writer used an understanding of source credibility to support his/her claim?

Revise after feedback to improve your use of sources to support your claim.


Date post:	26-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	leona-gallagher
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

C ONNECTING E VIDENCE TO A C LAIM : S TRATEGIES FOR A RGUMENT W RITING Jean Wolph Revised April 2015...

Documents