AP Seminar EOC Template for Success: Part A Question 1: Who is the article mainly about? (Usually one entity, but may be two) What is the article mainly about? Where is this occurring? When are the comments appropriate to? Why is the author talking about this? How does the author think this should be accomplished? Now put it all together: The author, _______________________ (verb) that (who) (what) (where) (when) (why), (how). For example: In this article, Susan Halpern argues that the big tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon hold too much power and influence over our society with insufficient government regulation and, while the EU has put some successful regulation in place, the US has insufficient protections for the public due to a lack of sophistication of congress regarding the tech sector and the unprecedented amount of money tech giants spend on lobbying congress to avoid legislation; furthermore, because of the lack of protections, Halpern feels that, like the government regulations that went into place after the industrial revolution to protect the populous, it is very important for the government to work quickly to legislate regulations on these big tech companies urgently. Question 2: Just go through the article paragraph by paragraph outlining how the author led to the main idea you just outlined above. (The two should relate strongly to one another.) Frame: To lead to the conclusion that (what you said in #1), (author) makes several claims and provides evidence in support. (Claim 1) is (supported, illustrated, illuminated, explained) by (evidence 1). This leads to (author)’s second claim that (Claim #2) that is (backed up, reinforced, buttressed, underpinned) by (evidence 2). As a result, asserts (author) (Claim 3), which is (shown, strengthened) by (evidence 3). All of which leads (or is meant to lead, if the argument is not good for some reason) the reader to understand her claim that (what you said in #1). Example: To lead to the conclusion that the government should regulate the large tech companies rather than relying on them to do it themselves, Halpern makes several claims and provides evidence in support of each of them. First, she describes the “torturous” relationship that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have had with government regulations, citing internal Facebook documents that show that while Zuckerberg publicly says he wants regulations, behind the scenes Facebook has conducted anti-regulation lobbying campaigns throughout the world. Her second claim is that the AI and human moderators put in place to protect consumers is insufficient for the scope of the problem, evidenced by Zuckerberg’s claim that they will always make some mistakes. Further, she asserts that Facebook’s motives in public relations statements can’t be trusted, which she illustrates by describing new requirements by Facebook to hand over personal e-mail passwords in order to use the service after Zuckerberg’s op-ed assuring increased privacy for users. Halpern’s argument goes on to cite the history of big businesses and regulation, which they have typically viewed as limiting innovation. Her support for this contention includes a quote from Zuckerberg himself that basically says that it is because of lax regulations that the value provided to our lives by the internet has been built by a generation of entrepreneurs. Next Halpern explores the potential reasons for the lack of regulation, demonstrated by Congress’s ignorance of tech and substantial economic influence of tech lobbyists. She then demonstrates that regulation can be done, such as that enforced in the EU by Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s commissioner for competition. She concludes by noting that our president has made remarks about Vestager, but that the EU’s laws are in place to deal with what she sees as the new “industrial revolution.” This is why Halpern feels that the government must regulate tech urgently. Question 3: 1. Make a clear statement on YOUR OPINION of how strong the argument in the article is. Use verbs like: Good Arguments Bad Arguments powerful well-written logical strong solid reliable credible unbiased fragile (connection or analogy) poorly-constructed convoluted weak flimsy unreliable questionable biased 2. Go through the argument you just outlined and provide commentary on the specific claims and evidence you cited. 3. Include a counter perspective to your overall claim. 4. Sum up your opinion Example: I believe that Halpern constructed a powerful argument for the urgent need for regulation. Her use of internal Facebook documents that contradict the public statements and the op-ed of Mark Zuckerberg strongly persuade the reader that the tech giants (or Facebook, at least) cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. She also includes similar evidence about Google and Amazon and the dollar amounts they have collectively spent on lobbying against regulation ($48,000,000!) as evidence that the regardless of what they may say in public, the tech giants do not want such legislation, which implies that there may be a reason they fear it. The solid evidence she supplies regarding the specific anti-trust measures that have been enacted in Europe continue the strength of her argument, where she cites ways in which their regulations have curbed Apple, Facebook, and Amazon as well as other companies). Her appeal to what we know to be the overreaches and abuses of industry during the Industrial Revolution further add to her argument. She does betray some weakness and bias through the use of the words “fawning, elementary, and sometimes inane” with regard to Congress’s questions about technology, which is, perhaps, to be expected because the piece appeared in the New Yorker, which, while extremely well-respected, as a publication may tend to present a more liberal than conservative view; however, overall, her strong evidence for the need for regulation, her appeal to emotion by citing the Christchurch Massacre being live-streamed, and in general her use of hard facts to support her contentions all make her argument solid in my opinion.
