Sample Paragraphs

The first viewpoint in the argument is that Record Labels are losing money because of the availability of music being streamed online. Pollock talks in his article “Three Huge Record Labels are Getting Ready to Take a lot of money.” about the negativities on streaming music. In there he states how record labels are signing the “Fair Digital Deals Declaration” that ensures that royalties are paid for the music that is streamed online on digital music websites. This shows that before that act was signed, those labels were losing money because the music that they owned that was being streamed online wasn't making any benefits for them. Sound cloud was a major website that took away from the record labels. It allowed members to upload any mp3 file and share it without having to own up to any copyright laws. Sound cloud was one of the first websites to agree to the new digital act signed so they would not take money from the labels but also keep their website up and members happy. Downloading music illegally also is unfair because artist and labels put so much effort into the record and time and money are spent to complete this objective and they get nothing in return once streamed music comes into play. Levin writes in “Money for nothing...” that “Record companies claim that downloading music from websites such as Napster is unethical because it deprives record companies and artist of fair profits by allowing users to pirate material that has been copyrighted” (Levin 2004). The previous statement agrees with the fact that sharing music becomes a problem when the rightful owners don't get the profits they deserve.

The first viewpoint in the argument is that Record Labels are losing money because of the availability of music being streamed online.

This is a weak claim. “The first viewpoint” is a weak start, and there’s no real argument, just an explanation that people say something.

We need to begin the paragraph with an argument:

“Record Labels contend that they lose money because of the availability of music that is streamed online.”

Pollock talks in his article “Three Huge Record Labels are Getting Ready to Take a lot of money.” about the negativities on streaming music.

A weak verb: “talks about”

Why is this whole title quoted? It means nothing to the reader.

It also seems to suggest that the record labels are doing fine!

The “negativities on streaming music?”

This is not a good introduction to the source.

Pollock talks in his article “Three Huge Record Labels are Getting Ready to Take a lot of money.” about the negativities on streaming music.

How about?

In his article about the impact of streaming music on record labels, James Pollock argues that . . . .

discusses the problems . . .shows that . . .

In there he states how record labels are signing the “Fair Digital Deals Declaration” that ensures that royalties are paid for the music that is streamed online on digital music websites.

“In there” is weak.

This doesn’t follow from the last sentence, which said that there were “negativities.”

This shows that before that act was signed, those labels were losing money because the music that they owned that was being streamed online wasn't making any benefits for them.

OK, but isn’t this a good thing?

The author spends ONE sentence dealing with the article and moves on. There’s no quotes.

As a reader, I have very little idea what this article is about.

Sound cloud was a major website that took away from the record labels. It allowed members to upload any mp3 file and share it without having to own up to any copyright laws. Sound cloud was one of the first websites to agree to the new digital act signed so they would not take money from the labels but also keep their website up and members happy. Downloading music illegally also is unfair because artist and labels put so much effort into the record and time and money are spent to complete this objective and they get nothing in return once streamed music comes into play.

I have no idea where this information is coming from.

The author of the article?The author of the paper?Another article that’s not cited?It goes back and forth between evidence and analysis in a way that’s not very easy to follow for the reader.

Levin writes in “Money for nothing...” that “Record companies claim that downloading music from websites such as Napster is unethical because it deprives record companies and artist of fair profits by allowing users to pirate material that has been copyrighted” (Levin 2004).

Now we get a new source:Who is LevinWhy is the title cited?What is this quote going to tell us?Why is this entire quote cited when it could be paraphrased?The citation is incorrect.

The previous statement agrees with the fact that sharing music becomes a problem when the rightful owners don't get the profits they deserve.

This doesn’t end the paragraph. It just says something about the quote before it, but it doesn’t say much.If you use a quote there needs to be a reason that it is there.

The link between video games and violence is vague at best, as there are clear arguments that reveal that gaming actually leads to positive emotional behavior. In a study in American Family Physician, a group of authors showed that the rate of violence, aggressive behavior, and weapon-carrying actually have fallen since violent video games became more common. The study suggests that “the fuss about video games may be just another case of curmudgeons complaining” (34). In other words, those who do not actually play video games are the ones making judgments about them. James Paul Gee has studied video games extensively and has taken a more optimistic look at video games. He argues that video games can enhance learning and offer players creative solutions to difficult problems that aren’t merely violence. He contends, ““we can leverage deeper and deeper learning as a form of pleasure in people’s everyday lives, without any hint of school or schooling” (215). Gee’s connection between “pleasure” and “deeper learning” is significant because it flies in the face of those who see gaming as a waste of time. In fact, even the most violent of video games such as the Grand Theft Auto series and Bioshock often force players to succeed without using violence, rewarding creative behavior. Perhaps the problem is that critics of games mainly only see the most violent portions on news shows or in magazines and immediately jump to conclusions. Whenever there is a problem with “today’s youth,” people look for easy answers and, because so many teenagers play them, video games often become an obvious target. Perhaps these critics should look more carefully at the gamers they’re attacking and also look to other culprits such as failing schools, issues at home, or existing psychological problems. It may be likely, as these authors suggest, that video games are actually the best thing troubled kids have to channel their creativity through.

a

The link between video games and violence is vague at best, as there are clear arguments that reveal that gaming actually leads to positive emotional behavior.

This claim sets up exactly what the paragraph is going to be about. It’s clear where it’s going to be about.

There are two sides – the one the author doesn’t agree with (the link is vague)

- the one the author does agree with (Gaming leads to positive behavior)

The link between video games and violence is vague at best, as there are clear arguments that reveal that gaming actually leads to positive emotional behavior. In a study in American Family Physician, a group of authors showed that the rate of violence, aggressive behavior, and weapon-carrying actually have fallen since violent video games became more common. Here’s a fact that backs up that claim.

Notice the way - The article is introduced.

- There aren’t a whole bunch of authors names, and we’ve got just the appropriate information.- There also isn’t a really long title.

- It’s clear what the article is about.

The study suggests that “the fuss about video games may be just another case of curmudgeons complaining” (34).

A good quote!

This quote is effective and gets to the point. The language is interesting (“the fuss” “curmudgeons complaining”)It tells me what the article discovered.

In other words, those who do not actually play video games are the ones making judgments about them.

Now the author tells us what this research means, why it matters, and how it helps their argument.

James Paul Gee has studied video games extensively and has taken a more optimistic look at video games. He argues that video games can enhance learning and offer players creative solutions to difficult problems that aren’t merely violence.

Moving on to another source:- See how the author is introduced? He is an

authority.- We know what’s he arguing, and the author has used two sentences to do this.- It builds on the last point, which was about violence in games.

He contends, “we can leverage deeper and deeper learning as a form of pleasure in people’s everyday lives, without any hint of school or schooling” (215).

A good quote. Though it might be good to connect this to gaming. However, the language is interesting.

He contends, “we can leverage deeper and deeper learning as a form of pleasure in people’s everyday lives, without any hint of school or schooling” (215). Gee’s connection between “pleasure” and “deeper learning” is significant because it flies in the face of those who see gaming as a waste of time.

The author deals with the quote. It’s not just hit-and-run quoting.It’s clear what point the author is making about this.

In fact, even the most violent of video games such as the Grand Theft Auto series and Bioshock often force players to succeed without using violence, rewarding creative behavior.

Some evidence

This may seem like it comes out of nowhere, but earlier in the paper the author has mentioned these games and she will mention them again. It builds on Gee’s point.

Perhaps the problem is that critics of games mainly only see the most violent portions on news shows or in magazines and immediately jump to conclusions.

Now we’ve moved from the claim to evidence and we can get in to analysis. (The last sentence was analysis as well, but now the author can comment what she’s written.

The author takes aim at the critics, the people she disagrees with.

It makes sense because of the argument she’s made.

If the critics knew what she had just written, they wouldn’t be jumping to these conclusions.

Whenever there is a problem with “today’s youth,” people look for easy answers and, because so many teenagers play them, video games often become an obvious target. Perhaps these critics should look more carefully at the gamers they’re attacking and also look to other culprits such as failing schools, issues at home, or existing psychological problems

I have a few issues with this, because this seems like enough information for a whole paragraph. But nonetheless, this is the way the author wants to go with it, so I’m willing to follow her.

It may be likely, as these authors suggest, that video games are actually the best thing troubled kids have to channel their creativity through.

A good conclusion. It ends on a note of optimism toward what games can do. And a solution.

The link between video games and violence is vague at best, as there are clear arguments that reveal that gaming actually leads to positive emotional behavior.

a

The link between video games and violence is vague at best, as there are clear arguments that reveal that gaming actually leads to positive emotional behavior.

a

The link between video games and violence is vague at best, as there are clear arguments that reveal that gaming actually leads to positive emotional behavior. In a study in American Family Physician, a group of authors showed that the rate of violence, aggressive behavior, and weapon-carrying actually have fallen since violent video games became more common. The study suggests that “the fuss about video games may be just another case of curmudgeons complaining” (34). In other words, those who do not actually play video games are the ones making judgments about them. James Paul Gee has studied video games extensively and has taken a more optimistic look at video games. He argues that video games can enhance learning and offer players creative solutions to difficult problems that aren’t merely violence. He contends, ““we can leverage deeper and deeper learning as a form of pleasure in people’s everyday lives, without any hint of school or schooling” (215). Gee’s connection between “pleasure” and “deeper learning” is significant because it flies in the face of those who see gaming as a waste of time. In fact, even the most violent of video games such as the Grand Theft Auto series and Bioshock often force players to succeed without using violence, rewarding creative behavior. Perhaps the problem is that critics of games mainly only see the most violent portions on news shows or in magazines and immediately jump to conclusions. Whenever there is a problem with “today’s youth,” people look for easy answers and, because so many teenagers play them, video games often become an obvious target. Perhaps these critics should look more carefully at the gamers they’re attacking and also look to other culprits such as failing schools, issues at home, or existing psychological problems. It may be likely, as these authors suggest, that video games are actually the best thing troubled kids have to channel their creativity through.

Notice what this does:

1. It has a claim

2. It’s backed up with evidence

3. It moves into analysis.