FIFTH EDITION
“THEY
SAY/ 1 SAY”
The Moves That Matter
in Academic Writing
WITH READINGS
GERALD GRAFF
CATHY BIRKENSTEIN
both of the University of Illinois at Chicago
RUSSEL DURST
University of Cincinnati
With LAURA J. PANNING DAVIES
SUNY Cortland
W. W. NORTON & COMPANY
Independent Publishers Since 1923
W. \V. Norton &. Company has been independent since its founding in 1923, when
William Warder Norton and Mar)' D. Herter Norton first published lectures delivered
at the People’s Institute, the adult education division of New York City’s Cooper
Union. The firm soon expanded its program beyond the Institute, publishing books by
celebrated academics from America and abroad. By midcentury, the two major pillars of
Norton’s publishing program trade books and college texts were firmly established.
In the 1950s, the Norton family transferred control of the company to its employees,
and today with a staff of five hundred and hundreds of trade, college, and professional
titles published each year W. W. Norton & Company stands as the largest and oldest
publishing house owned wholly by its employees.
—
—
—
—
Copyright © 2021, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2009, 2006
by W. W. Norton &. Company, Inc.
ml
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Composition: Cenveo
Manufacturing: LSC Communications, Crawfordsville
404,1
’ermission to use copyrighted material is included in the credits section of this
Pe
book, which begins on page 739.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Graff, Gerald, author. I Birkenstein, Cathy, author. I Durst, Russel
K., 1954- audior.
Title: “They say / I say” : die moves that matter in academic writing with
readings / Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, both of the Universit)' of
Illinois at Chicago, Russel Durst, Universit)' of Cincinnati.
Other titles: They say/1 say with readings
Description: Fifth Edition. I New York : W.W. Norton &. Company, [2021] I
Fourth edition: 2018. I Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020045140 I ISBN 9780393427509 (Paperback) I ISBN
9780393538335 (ePub)
Subjects: LCSH: Writing. I Authorship. I English
language Rhetoric Handbooks, manuals, etc. I Persuasion
(Rhetoric) Handbooks, manuals, etc. I Report writing Handbooks,
manuals, etc.
Classification: LCC PE1431 .G73 2021b I DDC 808.06/6378-dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020045140
——
—
—
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110
wwnorton.com
W. W. Norton &. Company Ltd., 15 Carlisle Street, London W1D 3BS
1 23456 7890
CONTENTS
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
xiii
Demystifying Academic Conversation
INTRODUCTION: Entering the Conversation 1
PREFACE:
xxl
PART 1. “THEY SAY”
1
“THEY SAY”: Starting with What Others Are Saying 19
IS”: The Art of Summarizing 32
IT”: The Art of Quoting
2 “HER POINT
3 “AS HE HIMSELF PUTS
47
PART 2. “I SAY”
4 “YES / NO
I
Three Ways to Respond
YET”: Distinguishing What You Say
from What They Say 72
OK, BUT”:
57
5 “AND
6 “SKEPTICS MAY OBJECT”:
7
Planting a Naysayer in Your Text 82
“SO WHAT? WHO CARES?”: Saying Why It Matters
96
PART 3. TYING IT ALL TOGETHER
RESULT”: Connecting the Parts 107
WAY?”:
Academic Writing Doesn’t Mean Setting
8 “AS A
9 “YOU MEAN I CAN JUST SAY IT THAT
Aside Your Oivn Voice
10
123
“BUT DON’T GET ME WRONG”:
The Art of Metacommentary
138
11 “WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY IS”:
Revising Substantially
PART 4. IN SPECIFIC ACADEMIC CONTEXTS
12 “I TAKE YOUR POINT”:
13
Entering Class Discussions
DON’T MAKE THEM SCROLL
Entering Online Conversations
UP:
177
172
149
Contents
CONTENTS
14
15
16
17
18
WHAT’S MOTIVATING THIS WRITER?
Reading for the Conversation 187
“BUT AS SEVERAL SOURCES SUGGEST”:
Research as Conversation 203
“ON CLOSER EXAMINATION”:
Entering Conversations about Literature 232
“THE DATA SUGGEST”: Writing in the Sciences 250
“ANALYZE THIS”: Writing in the Social Sciences 269
READINGS
*19
WHY CARE ABOUT THE PLANET?
291
’NAOMI KLEIN, “We Are the Wildfire”:
How to Fight the Climate Crisis 294
’DAN CRENSHAW, It’s Time for Conservatives to Oiun
the Climate-Change Issue 303
’ALICE CHEN AND VIVEK MURTHY, Should We Be More
Optimistic about Fighting Climate Change! 309
’BEN ADLER, Banning Plastic Bags Is Great for the World,
Right! Not So Fast 320
’CHARLES J. MOORE, Choking the Oceans with Plastic 327
’SANDIS EDWARD WAIALAE WIGHTMAN, Mauna Kea:
The Fight to Preserve Culture 333
’MONA HANNA-ATTISHA, ET AL., Elevated Blood Lead
Levels in Children Associated with the Flint
Drinking Water Crisis 342
’MICHAEL R. GREENBERG, Delivering Fresh Water:
Critical Infrastructure, Environmental Justice ,
and Flint, Michigan 368
20
HOW CAN WE BRIDGE THE DIFFERENCES THAT
DIVIDE US? 377
The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb
BOYD, Why America Is Self-Segregating
'KELLY CORYELL, All Words
Matter: The Manipulation
behind “All Lives Matter” 397
MICHELLE ALEXANDER, The New Jim Crow 408
’JOHN MCWHORTER, Could Black English Mean
a Prison Sentence! 428
Hillbilly Elegy 433
What Hillbilly Elegy Reveals about Race
in Twenty-First-Century America 451
’SUKETU MEHTA, Jobs, Crime, and Culture:
The Threats That Aren’t 458
’DAVID FRUM, How Much Immigration Is Too Much!
The Wrong Debate 474
J. D. VANCE,
’LISA R. PRUITT,
21
WHAT’S COLLEGE FOR?
STEPHANIE OWEN AND ISABEL SAWHILL,
Everyone Go to College! 488
Are Too Many People
Going to College! 506
LIZ ADDISON, Two Years Are Better Than Four 527
ANNA CLARK, Why We Need to Keep the “Community"
in Community College 531
GABRIELA MORO, Minority Student Clubs:
Segregation or Integration! 538
GERALD GRAFF, Hidden Intellectualism 548
’SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, Generation Stress:
The Mental Health Crisis on Campus 556
’CHARLES FAIN LEHMAN, The Student Loan Trap:
When Debt Delays Life 567
22
HOW IS TECHNOLOGY CHANGING US?
380
KENNETH GOLDSMITH,
DANAH
387
on the Internet
*New to this edition
Should
CHARLES MURRAY,
SEAN BLANDA,
X
485
579
Go Ahead: Waste Time
582
*New to this edition
CONTENTS
’JENNA WORTHAM, Has Coronavirus Made the
Internet Better? 587
’NICHOLAS BRODY, It Turns Out Our Tech Gadgets Aren’t
as Isolating as Experts Say 593
’NICHOLAS CARR, Hoiu Smartphones Hijack Our Minds 597
’JUSTIN VINH, Social Media: The Screen, the Brain, and
Human Nature 607
’SHERRY TURKLE, Stop Googling. Let’s Talk. 614
CAROLE CADWALLADR, Google, Democracy, and
the Truth about Internet Search 624
’AGUSTIN FUENTES, Are We Really as Awful as
We Act Online? 643
23
WHAT’S GENDER GOT TO DO WITH IT?
651
She in First Grade 654
LAURIE FRANKEL, From He
’FARHAD MANJOO, It’s Time for “They” 660
’DAMON LINKER, Liberals’ Astonishingly Radical
Shift on Gender 666
ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, Why Women Still Can’t
Have It All 673
RICHARD DORMENT, Why Men Still Can’t Have It All
’HELEN LEWIS, The Coronavirus Is a Disaster
for Feminism 715
’SANJANA RAMANATHAN, An End to Sexism in
to
694
Gaming Communities 723
’MONICA WRIGHT, Why We Need Title IX Now
More Than Ever
CREDITS
731
739
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INDEX OF TEMPLATES
744
759
INDEX OF AUTHORS AND TITLES
xi I
779
*New
to
this edition
The Art of Summarizing
—
TWO
“HER POINT IS”
The Art of Summarizing
as we claim in this book, that to argue
persuasively you need to be in dialogue with others, then sum¬
marizing others’ arguments is central to your arsenal of basic
moves. Because writers who make strong claims need to map
their claims relative to those of other people, it is important
If
by the writers’ own interests, they often read like mere lists of
things that X thinks or Y says with no clear focus.
As a general rule, a good summary requires balancing what
the original author is saying with the writer’s own focus.
Generally speaking, a summary must at once be true to what
the original author says while also emphasizing those aspects
of what the author says that interest you, the writer. Strik¬
ing this delicate balance can be tricky, since it means facing
two ways at once: both outward (toward the author being
summarized) and inward (toward yourself). Ultimately, it
means being respectful of others but simultaneously struc¬
turing how you summarize them in light of your own text’s
central argument.
it is true,
ON THE ONE HAND,
PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR SHOES
what those other people
say. (We’re using the word “summarizing” here to refer to any
information from others that you present in your own words,
including that which you paraphrase.)
Many writers shy away from summarizing perhaps because
they don’t want to take the trouble to go back to the text in
question and wrestle with what it says, or because they fear that
devoting too much time to other people’s ideas will take away
from their own. When assigned to write a response to an article,
such writers might offer their own views on the article’s topic
while hardly mentioning what the article itself argues or says. At
the opposite extreme are those who do nothing but summarize.
Lacking confidence, perhaps, in their own ideas, these writers so
overload their texts with summaries of others’ ideas that their
own voice gets lost. And since these summaries are not animated
you are summarizing.
If, as a writer, you cannot or will not suspend your own
beliefs in this way, you are likely to produce summaries that are
32
33
to know how to summarize effectively
—
To write a really good summary, you must be able to suspend your
own beliefs for a time and put yourself in the shoes of someone
else. This means playing what the writing theorist Peter Elbow
calls the “believing game,” in which you try to inhabit the world¬
view of those whose conversation you are joining and whom you
are perhaps even disagreeing with and try to see their argument
from their perspective. This ability to temporarily suspend one’s
own convictions is a hallmark of good actors, who must convinc¬
ingly “become” characters whom in real life they may detest. As
a writer, when you play the believing game well, readers should
not be able to tell whether you agree or disagree with the ideas
—
—
TWO
“HER POINT IS"
so obviously biased that they undermine your credibility with
readers. Consider the following summary:
David Zinczenko’s article “Don’t Blame the Eater” is nothing more
than an angry rant in which he accuses the fast-food companies
of an evil conspiracy to make people fat. I disagree because these
companies have to make money. . . .
If you review what Zinczenko actually says (pp. 199-202), you
should immediately see that this summary amounts to an unfair
distortion. While Zinczenko does argue that the practices of
the fast-food industry have the effect of making people fat, his
tone is never “angry," and he never goes so far as to suggest
that the fast-food industry conspires to make people fat with
deliberately evil intent.
Another telltale sign of this writer’s failure to give
Zinczenko a fair hearing is the hasty way he abandons the sum¬
mary after only one sentence and rushes on to his own response.
So eager is this writer to disagree that he not only caricatures
what Zinczenko says but also gives the article a hasty, super¬
ficial reading. Granted, there are many writing situations in
which, because of matters of proportion, a one- or two-sentence
summary is precisely what you want. Indeed, as writing profes¬
sor Karen Lunsford (whose own research focuses on argument
theory) points out, it is standard in the natural and social sci¬
ences to summarize the work of others quickly, in one pithy
sentence or phrase, as in the following example:
The Art of Summarizing
But if your assignment is to respond in writing to a single author,
like Zinczenko, you will need to tell your readers enough about
the argument so they can assess its merits on their own, inde¬
pendent of you.
When summarizing something you’ve read, be sure to provide
a rigorous and thoughtful summary of the author’s words, or you
may fall prey to what we call "the closest cliche syndrome,” in
which what gets summarized is not the view the author in ques¬
tion has actually expressed but a familiar cliche that the writer
mistakes for the author’s view (sometimes because the writer
believes it and mistakenly assumes the author must too). So,
for example, Martin Luther King Jr.’s passionate defense of civil
disobedience in “Letter from Birmingham Jail” might be summa¬
rized not as the defense of political protest that it actually is but
as a plea for everyone to "just get along.” Similarly, Zinczenko’s
critique of the fast-food industry might be summarized as a call
for overweight people to take responsibility for their weight.
Whenever you enter into a conversation with others in your
writing, then, it is extremely important that you go back to
what those others have said, that you study it very closely, and
that you not confuse it with something you already believe.
Writers who fail to do this end up essentially conversing with
imaginary others who ate really only the products of their own
biases and preconceptions.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING
Several studies (Crackle, 2012; Pop, 2007; Snap, 2006) suggest that
these policies are harmless; moreover, other studies (Dick, 2011;
Harry, 2007; Tom, 2005) argue that they even have benefits.
34
Even as writing an effective summary requires you to temporar¬
ily adopt the worldview of another person, it does not mean
35
TWO
The Art of Summarizing
“HER POINT IS”
ignoring your own view altogether. Paradoxically, at the same
time that summarizing another text requires you to represent
fairly what it says, it also requires that your own response exert
a quiet influence. A good summary, in other words, has a focus
or spin that allows the summary to fit with your own agenda
while still being true to the text you are summarizing.
Thus if you are writing in response to the essay by Zinczenko,
you should be able to see that an essay on the fast-food industry
in general will call for a very different summary than will an
essay on parenting, corporate regulation, or warning labels. If
you want your essay to encompass all three topics, you’ll need
to subordinate these three issues to one of Zinczenko’s general
claims and then make sure this general claim directly sets up
your own argument.
For example, suppose you want to argue that it is parents, not
fast-food companies, who are to blame for children’s obesity.
To set up this argument, you will probably want to compose a
summary that highlights what Zinczenko says about the fast¬
food industry and parents. Consider this sample:
In his article “Don’t Blame the Eater,” David Zinczenko blames
the fast-food industry for fueling today’s so-called obesity epidemic,
not only by failing to provide adequate warning labels on its
high-calorie foods but also by filling the nutritional void in chil¬
dren’s lives left by their overtaxed working parents. With many
parents working long hours and unable to supervise what their
children eat, Zinczenko claims, children today are easily victimized
by the low-cost, calorie-laden foods that the fast-food chains are all
too eager to supply. When he was a young boy, for instance, and his
single mother was away at work, he ate at Taco Bell, McDonald’s,
and other chains on a regular basis, and ended up overweight.
Zinczenko’s hope is that with the new spate of lawsuits against
36
the food industry, other children with working parents will have
healthier choices available to them, and that they will not, like
him, become obese.
In my view, however, it is the parents, and not the food chains,
who are responsible for their children’s obesity. While it is true
that many of today's parents work long hours, there are still several
things that parents can do to guarantee that their children eat
healthy foods. . . .
The summary in the first paragraph succeeds because it points
in two directions at once both toward Zinczenko’s own text
and toward the second paragraph, where the writer begins to
establish her own argument. The opening sentence gives a sense
of Zinczenko’s general argument (that the fast-food chains are
to blame for obesity), including his two main supporting claims
(about warning labels and parents), but it ends with an empha¬
sis on the writer’s main concern: parental responsibility. In this
way, the summary does justice to Zinczenko’s arguments while
also setting up the ensuing critique.
This advice to summarize authors in light of your own
agenda may seem painfully obvious. But writers often summa¬
rize a given author on one issue even though their text actually
focuses on another. To ‘avoid this problem, you need to make
sure that your “they say” and “1 say” are well matched. In fact,
aligning what they say with what you say is a good thing to
work on when revising what you’ve written.
Often writers who summarize without regard to their own
agenda fall prey to what might be called “list summaries,” sum¬
maries that simply inventory the original author’s various points
but fail to focus those points around any larger overall claim. If
you’ve ever heard a talk in which the points were connected
only by words like “and then,” “also,” and “in addition,” you
—
— —
37
TWO
The Art of Summarizing
"HER POINT IS”
AND THEN HE SAYS .. - THEN
ALSO HE POINTS OUT...
...AND THEN ANOTHER
THING HE SAYS IS...
AND THEN..
THE EFFECT OF A TYPICAL LIST SUMMARY
—
shown in
know how such lists can put listeners to sleep as
like this:
the figure above. A typical list summary sounds
subject. First he
The author says many different things about his
he says . . .
says . . . Then he makes the point that ... In addition
he says . . .
And then he writes . . . Also he shows that . . . And then
summaries
It may be boring list summaries like this that give
some instructors to
in general a bad name and even prompt
discourage their students from summarizing at all.
Not all lists are bad, however. A list can be an excellent
being a mis¬
way to organize material- but only if, instead of
larger argument
cellaneous grab bag, it is organized around a
summaries,
well-written
Many
that informs each item listed.
author,
sometimes
for instance, list various points made by an
“Second,
she
itemizing those points (“First, she argues . . . ,”
—
38
argues . . . ,” “Third . . .”), and sometimes even itemizing those
points in bullet form.
Many well-written arguments are organized in a list format as
well. In “The New Liberal Arts,” Sanford J. Ungar lists what he
sees as seven common misperceptions that discourage college
students from majoring in the liberal arts, the first of which
begin:
Misperception No. 1: A liberal-arts degree is a luxury that most
families can no longer afford. . . .
Misperception No. 2: College graduates are finding it harder to get
good jobs with liberal-arts degrees. . . .
Misperception No. 3: The liberal arts are particularly irrelevant for
low-income and first-generation college students. They, more than
their more-affluent peers, must focus on something more practical
and marketable.
Sanford J. Ungar, “The New Liberal Arts”
What makes Ungar’s list so effective, and makes it stand out in
contrast to the type of disorganized lists our cartoon parodies, is
that it has a clear, overarching goal: to defend the liberal arts.
Had Ungar’s article lacked such a unifying agenda and instead
been a miscellaneous grhb bag, it almost assuredly would have
lost its readers, who wouldn’t have known what to focus on or
what the final “message” or “takeaway” should be.
In conclusion, writing a good summary means not just
representing an author’s view accurately but doing so in a
way that fits what you want to say, the larger point you want
to make. On the one hand, it means playing Peter Elbow’s
believing game and doing justice to the source; if the summary
ignores or misrepresents the source, its bias and unfairness will
show. On the other hand, even as it does justice to the source,
39
TWO
“HER POINT IS"
way
a summary has to have a slant or spin that prepares the
you
text,
your
enters
summary
for your own claims. Once a
the
just
not
should think of it as joint property reflecting
source you are summarizing but your own perspective or take
—
The Art of Summarizing
in this insulting way. But in taking their position to its logical
conclusion, Ungar’s satire suggests that this is precisely what
their position amounts to.
on it as well.
USE SIGNAL VERBS THAT FIT THE ACTION
SUMMARIZING SATIRICALLY
Thus far in this chapter we have argued that, as a general rule,
good summaries require a balance between what someone else
has said and your own interests as a writer. Now, however, we
summary,
want to address one exception to this rule: the satiric
someone
to
spin
own
their
in which writers deliberately give
in it.
shortcoming
else’s argument in order to reveal a glaring
Despite our previous comments that well-crafted summaries
generally strike a balance between heeding what someone else
has said and your own independent interests, the satiric mode
can at times be a very effective form of critique because it lets
the summarized argument condemn itself without overt edito¬
rializing by you, the writer.
One such satiric summary can be found in Sanford J. Ungar’s
essay “The New Liberal Arts,” which we just mentioned. In his
discussion of the “misperception,” as he sees it, that a liberal
and
arts education is “particularly irrelevant for low-income
some¬
on
focus
first-generation college students,” who “must
thing more practical and marketable,” Ungar restates this view
as “another way of saying, really, that the rich folks will do
the important thinking, and the lower classes will simply carry
disadvantaged stu¬
out their ideas.” Few who would dissuade
dents from the liberal arts would actually state their position
40
In introducing summaries, try to avoid bland formulas like “she
says” or “they believe.” Though language like this is sometimes
serviceable enough, it often fails to reflect accurately what’s
been said. Using these weaker verbs may lead you to summarize
the topic instead of the argument. In some cases, “he says” may
even drain the passion out of the ideas you’re summarizing.
We suspect that the habit of ignoring the action when sum¬
marizing stems from the mistaken belief we mentioned earlier,
that writing is about playing it safe and not making waves, a
matter of piling up truths and bits of knowledge rather than
a dynamic process of doing things to and with other people.
People who wouldn’t hesitate to say “X totally misrepresented,”
“attacked,” or “loved” something when chatting with friends
will in their writing often opt for far tamer and even less accu¬
rate phrases like “X said.”
But the authors you summarize at the college level seldom
simply “say” or “discuss” things; they “urge,” “emphasize,”
and “complain about” them. David Zinczenko, for example,
doesn’t just say that fast-food companies contribute to obe¬
sity; he complains or protests that they do; he challenges,
chastises, and indicts those companies. The Declaration of
Independence doesn’t just talk about the treatment of the
colonies by the British; it protests against it. To do justice to
the authors you cite, we recommend that when summarizing
—
41
TWO
The Art of Summarizing
“HER POINT IS"
or when introducing a quotation
—you use vivid and precise
signal verbs as often as possible. Though “he says” or “she
believes” will sometimes be the most appropriate language
for the occasion, your text will often be more accurate and
lively if you tailor your verbs to suit the precise actions
you’re describing.
TEMPLATES FOR WRITING SUMMARIES
To introduce a summary, use one of the signal verbs above in
a template like these:
In her essay X, she advocates a radical revision of the juvenile
justice system.
.
They celebrate the fact that
, he admits.
When you tackle the summary itself, think about what else
is important beyond the central claim of the argument. For
example, what are the conversations the author is responding
to? What kinds of evidence does the author’s argument rely on?
What are the implications of what the author says, both for
your own argument and for the larger conversation?
Here is a template that you can use to develop your summary:
.
, argue that
X and Y, in their article
Their
, challenges the idea
research, which demonstrates that
X and Y’s
to show
They use
that
.
.
argument speaks to
about the larger issue of
42
VERBS FOR INTRODUCING
SUMMARIES AND QUOTATIONS
VERBS FOR MAKING A CLAIM
argue
insist
assert
observe
believe
remind us
claim
report
emphasize
suggest
VERBS FOR EXPRESSING AGREEMENT
acknowledge
admire
admit
do not deny
endorse
extol
agree
praise
celebrate
reaffirm
concede
support
corroborate
verify
VERBS FOR QUESTIONING OR DISAGREEING
complain
qualify
complicate
question
contend
refute
contradict
deny
reject
deplore the tendency
renounce
to
repudiate
.
43
The Art of Summarizing
“HER POINT IS"
VERBS FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS
advocate
implore
call for
plead
demand
recommend
encourage
urge
exhort
warn
Exercises
1. To get a feel for Peter Elbow’s believing game, think about
a debate you’ve heard recently perhaps in class, at your
workplace, or at home. Write a summary of one of the argu¬
ments you heard. Then write a summary of another position
in the same debate. Give both your summaries to a classmate
or two. See if they can tell which position you endorse. If
you’ve succeeded, they won’t be able to tell.
—
2. Read the following passage from “Our Manifesto to Fix Amer¬
ica’s Gun Laws,” an argument written by the editorial board
of the Eagle Eye, the student newspaper at Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in response to the
mass shooting that occurred there on February 14, 2018.
We have a unique platform not only as student journalists but also
as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the
kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction
can produce. We cannot stand idly by as the country continues to
be infected by a plague of gun violence that seeps into community
after community and does irreparable damage to the hearts and
minds of the American people....
44
The changes we propose:
Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds
Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that sol¬
diers do. That's a gross misuse of the second amendment ...
Ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons
High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at
our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17
others were injured. This is unacceptable ...
Establish a database of gun sales and universal background
checks
We believe that there should be a database recording which
guns are sold in the United States, to whom, and of what caliber
and capacity they are . ..
Raise the firearm purchase age to 21
In a few months from now, many of us will be turning 18. We
will not be able to drink; we will not be able to rent a car. Most
of us will still be living with our parents. We will not be able
to purchase a handgun. And yet we will be able to purchase
an AR-15
...
a. Do you think
the list format is appropriate for this argu¬
ment? Why or why not?
b. Write a one-sentence summary of this argument, using
one of the verbs from the list on pages 43—44c. Compare your summary with a classmate’s. What are the
similarities and differences between them?
3. A student was asked to summarize an essay by writer Ben
Adler, “Banning Plastic Bags Is Good for the World, Right?
45
TWO
"HER POINT IS”
Not So Fast” (pp. 320-25). Here is the draft: “Ben Adler
says that climate change is too big of a problem for any one
person to solve.”
a. How does this summary fall prey to the “closest cliche
syndrome” (p. 35)?
b. What’s a better verb to use than “say”? Why do you
think so?
46