A Research Paper is NOT…
•A rearrangement or summary of information
from different sources
•A report that could be included in a
general encyclopedia
•A matter of cutting and pasting together
from different resources
•A result of one quick Database or Google
Scholar search
A Research Paper is…
 Your
own analysis of information
discovered from peer reviewed
resources
 A chance to teach yourself something
new
 A chance to demonstrate to others
what you have learned, organized in a
professional, scholarly manner
Stages of Researched Writing









•Choosing and Narrowing a Topic
•Gathering Material: Note‐taking & Avoiding
Plagiarism
•Annotated Bibliography
•Thesis Statement
•Types of Argument
•Outline
•Integrating Secondary Sources: Direct
Quotation, Paraphrasing, Summarizing
•Works Cited Page
•Title
Narrowing a Topic
General: Birds.
 Focused: The effect of deforestation on
endangered bird populations in
Paraguay.
 General: Nick in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s
novel The Great Gatsby
 Focused: Symbolism associated with
Nick concerning themes of love and
redemption.

Thesis Statement






•Answers the question, “What is this paper
trying to prove to its audience?”
•Compresses the critical crux of your paper
into one sentence.
•Conveys your main argument in a
nutshell.
•Uses specific language and specific ideas.
•Generates a multi‐faceted argument.
•Appears in your paper’s introduction
A Research-Based Essay
•
A Research Paper will utilize statistics,
report findings, and expert opinion to
demonstrate/support your stance on the
subject.
• You may want to incorporate the opposition
to your topic into the essay and work on
refuting their claims and dissenting views.
• Refutation means pointing out the
problems with the opposing viewpoints,
thereby highlighting your own position’s
superiority.
Opposition

Predict counterarguments
Example:
Your Argument: Organic produce from local Farmers’
Markets is better than store-bought produce.
The Opposition: Organic produce is too expensive.
Greek Basic Concepts of Logic:
LOGOS
Logos—the soundness of your
argument: the facts, statistics,
examples, and authoritative statements
you gather to support your viewpoint.
 This supporting evidence must be
unified, specific, adequate, accurate,
and representative.

Greek Basic Concepts of Logic:
PATHOS
Pathos—the emotional power of
language: appeals to readers’ needs,
values, and attitudes, encouraging them
to commit themselves to a viewpoint or
course of action.
 Connotative language—words with
strong emotional overtones—can move
readers to accept a point of view and
may even spur them to act.

Greek Concepts of Logic:
ETHOS
Ethos—the credibility and integrity of
the argument: you cannot expect
readers to accept or act on your
viewpoint unless you convince them that
you know what you’re talking about.
 Come across as knowledgeable and
trustworthy by incorporating logos and
taking the opposing views into account.

Avoiding Plagiarism

Precise note‐taking should help you avoid
unintentional plagiarism, since you’ll keep
secondary source information clearly distinct
from your original thoughts. If the idea is not
common knowledge (“the sun rises and also
sets”), or not the product of your original
thought processes, then cite it.
Tip: If in doubt, cite!
Note‐Taking
 When
taking notes, be sure to cite
your sources carefully (author, title,
page numbers, publisher, publication
date) and mention whether you are
quoting the source verbatim (direct
quotation) or summarizing a
source’s ideas in your own words.
Writing an Effective Research
Paper
Evidence/Support can be found in many
ways:

Which source would a reader find more credible?
 The New York Times
 http://www.myopinion.com

Which person would a reader be more likely to
believe?
 Joe Smith from Fort Wayne, IN
 Dr. Susan Worth, Prof. of Criminology at Purdue
University
Source Evaluation Questions
Ask yourself the following questions to determine
a source’s level of credibility:
 When was the source published?
 What are author’s credentials?
 Who’s the intended audience?
 Is the argument balanced or does it show bias
and make unsupported claims, illogical
conclusions, or inaccurate generalizations?
 Lastly, what sorts of references does your
source cite?
A Mnemonic Device from
Dr. Robert Harris: A Good Way
to Remember the Previous Slide
“CAAAR”=
 Currency
 Authorship
 Audience
 Argument
 References

Peer‐Reviewed/Refereed/Scholarly
Sources: A Few Examples
Electronic Sources:
On‐line articles from our library’s
subscription databases such as
GaleNet, JSTOR and ProQuest.

Print Sources:
Journal articles, books.

Types of Sources

•Peer‐Reviewed/Scholarly/Refereed sources
are by professional experts in the field.
Examples: Publication of the Modern
Language Association, Cell, Journal of the
American Medical Association.

•General‐audience sources are for
non‐experts. They are written in non‐technical,
accessible language. Examples:
Cosmopolitan, Newsweek, Better Homes &
Gardens, and many Google‐able and
Yahoo‐able websites.
Misrepresentation
Don’t misrepresent a quote or leave out
important information.
Misquote: “Crime rates were down by 2002,”
according to Dr. Smith.
Actual quote: “Crime rates were down by
2002, but steadily began climbing again a year
later,” said to Dr. Smith.
Integrating Your Sources
•
•
•
For each source, you should establish the credibility of the
material or person being cited.
After each quote, you need to explain the material to the reader
and then provide a response.
By providing a response to the sourced material, you are
integrating the support into your argument.
Mary Sherry, owner and founder of a research and publishing firm,
finds that many writers who aim to publish their work are
“inadequately suffering from grammar amnesia and are deluded
by a desire to be famous” (515). By this, I think she means that
many of the writers today have overlooked the importance of
grammar and punctuation and simply want to be recognized. This
supports my stance that many writing students today. . .
Quotation No‐Nos!

•NO dropped quotations or quoting
without proper context presented by
your own thoughtful phrasing.

•NO traffic‐jam quoting or
choo‐chootrain quoting where several
direct quotations are strung together,
one after another, without discussion.
Inductive Reasoning
Involves examination of specific cases,
facts, or examples. Based on these
specifics, you then draw a conclusion or
make a generalization.
 Evidence: My head is aching
 Evidence: My nose is stuffy
 Evidence: My throat is scratchy
 Conclusion: I am coming down with a
cold.

Deductive Reasoning
Begins with a generalization that is then
applied to a specific case
 This movement from general to specific
involves a three-step form of reasoning
called a syllogism:
1)Major Premise
2)Minor Premise
3)Conclusion

Example of Syllogism

Major Premise: In an accident, large
cars are safer than small cars

Minor Premise: The Hummer is a large
car.

Conclusion: In an accident, the Hummer
will be safer than a small car.
Logical Fallacies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hasty Generalization
Sweeping Generalization
Post Hoc Fallacy (“after this, therefore because of
this”)
Non Sequitor Fallacy (“it does not follow”)
Ad Hominen Argument (“to the man”)
Appeals to Questionable or Faulty Authority
Begging the Question
A False Analogy
Either/or Fallacy
Red Herring Fallacy
Appeal to Reader’s Fear or Pity
Hasty Generalizations
•
Hasty Generalization: making a claim on
the basis of inadequate evidence.
• Example: It is disturbing that several of
the youths who shot up schools were
users of violent video games. Obviously,
these games can breed violence, and
they should be banned.
[Most youths who play violent video games
do not behave violently.]
Sweeping Generalization
•
Absolute statements involving words
such as all, always, never, and no one
that allow no exceptions.
• Examples:
People who live in cities are unfriendly.
Californians are fad-crazy
Women are emotional
Men can’t express their feelings
[These are often considered stereoptypes]
Post Hoc Fallacy
•
Occurs when you conclude that a causeeffect relationship exists simply because
one even preceded another.
• Example:
A number of immigrants settle in a nearby
city.
The city suffers an economic decline.
The immigrants’ arrival caused the decline.
[This is simply co-occurrence. There are most
likely other reasons for the decline.]
Non-Sequitor
Linking two or more ideas that in fact
have no logical connection.
 Example: She uses a wheelchair, so she
must be unhappy.

[The second clause has nothing to do with
the first.]
Ad Hominem
Attacking the qualities of the people
holding an opposing view rather than the
view itself.
 Example: Bill Clinton had extramarital
affairs, so his views on global policy
merit no attention.

[Do the ex-president’s marital problems
invalidate his political views?]
Appeals to Questionable or Faulty
Authority
•
Occurs when the argument fails to provide
the credibility of the sourced material.
• Examples:
Sources show…
An unidentified spokesperson states…
Experts claim…
Studies show…
[If these people and reports are so reliable,
they should be clearly identified.]
Begging the Question
Involves failure to establish proof for a
debatable point.
 Example: The college library’s funding
should be reduced by cutting
subscriptions to useless periodicals.

[Are some of the library’s periodicals
useless?]
False Analogy
•
Implies that because two things share some
characteristics, they are therefore alike in all respects.
• Example: Nicotine and marijuana involve health risks
and have addictive properties.
“Driving while smoking a cigarette isn’t illegal, so driving
while smoking marijuana shouldn’t be illegal.”
[By making this argument, you have overlooked a major
difference between these two substances. Marijuana
impairs perception and coordination—important
aspects of driving—while there’s no evidence that
nicotine does the same.]
Either/or Fallacy
•
•
Assuming that a complicated question
has only two answers, one good and
one bad, or both bad.
Example: Either we permit mandatory
drug testing in the workplace or
productivity will continue to decline.
[Productivity is not necessarily dependent
on drug testing.]
Red Herring
•
Introducing an irrelevant issue intended to
distract readers from the relevant issues
• Example: A campus speech code is
essential to protect students, who already
have enough problems coping with rising
tuition.
[Tuition costs and speech codes are different
subjects. What protections do students
need that a speech code will provide?]
Appeal to Reader’s Fear or Pity
Substituting emotions for reasoning
 Example: She should not have to pay
taxes because she is an aged widow
with no friends or relatives.

[Appeals to people’s pity. Should age and
loneliness, rather than income,
determine a person’s tax obligation.]