9-24-15
Summarize, analyze, compare
Goals:
•Review summary & analysis
•Understand comparison through practice
•Understand assignment for Paper 3
Summary:
Analysis:
• Brief version of the original text
• Includes key points, but not details
• Depth of summary depends on purpose
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title
Subheadings
Bold, italics, colors
Tables, charts, images
Anything that highlights text
First & last paragraphs
Blank space (change of idea)
Repetition (key word/phrase)
Stories, examples (What’s the point?)
What does it SAY? (summary)
What does it DO? (purpose)
HOW? (strategies)
WHY? (context)
Comparison (a.k.a., “Compare/Contrast”)
• Similarities (How are these things alike?)
• Differences (How are these things unalike?)
• Conclusion (So what?)
How are these ads alike? How are they different?
How are these ads alike? How are they different?
How are these logos alike? How are they different?
How are these logos alike? How are they different?
Let’s eat Grandma!
Let’s eat, Grandma!
How are these sentences alike? How are they different?
Trees
by Joyce Kilmer
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast;
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Vertical
by Linda Pastan
Perhaps the purpose of leaves is to conceal
the verticality of trees which we notice in December
as if for the first time: row after row of dark forms
yearning upwards. And since we will be horizontal
ourselves for so long, let us now honor
the gods of the vertical: stalks of wheat which
to the ant must seem as high as these trees do to us,
silos and telephone poles, stalagmites and skyscrapers.
but most of all these winter oaks, these soft-fleshed poplars,
this birch whose bark is like roughened skin against
which I lean my chilled head, not ready to lie down.
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
How are these poems alike? How are they different?
When Aaron Stein was studying nuclear nonproliferation at
Middlebury College's Monterey graduate program, the students
would sometimes construct what they thought would be the
best possible nuclear inspection and monitoring regimes.
Years later, Stein is now a Middle East and nuclear
proliferation expert with the Royal United Services Institute (as
well as the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and the Atlantic
Council). And in April, he told me that the Iran nuclear deal,
the broad strokes of which had just been announced, looks an
awful lot like those ideal hypotheticals he'd put together in grad
school.
"When I was doing my nonproliferation training at
Monterey, this is the type of inspection regime that we would
dream up in our heads," he said at the time. "We would hope
that this would be the way to actually verify all enrichment
programs, but thought that would never be feasible."
Stein concluded it would make "an excellent deal" — if the
negotiators could turn those broad strokes into a formal,
finalized agreement. This week, they did exactly that.
The full, final Iran nuclear deal "exceeds in all areas," Stein
said on Tuesday. "It makes the possibility of Iran developing a
nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely remote."
Like many observers, I doubted in recent months that Iran
and world powers would ever reach this stage; the setbacks and
delays had simply been too many. Now here we are, and the
terms are astoundingly favorable to the United States. Arms
control and nuclear nonproliferation experts are heralding it
as a huge success. …
Last week, Congress kicked off hearings for its 60-day review
of President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Despite
Administration assurances—given even before the agreement was
concluded—Congress would have this review time, Obama rushed
the deal to judgment at the U.N. to bind the U.S. internationally
before congressional review could be undertaken.
The chief negotiator of an agreement that abandons America’s
seven decade-long policy of non-proliferation and violates
Obama’s numerous promises to block a nuclear-armed Iran is
Secretary of State John Kerry. In addition to playing the U.N.
card, Kerry is playing the war card with Congress.
Both cards seek to hide the real deal. Congressional review
needs to include examining the historical context of how we got
into negotiating such a bad one.
Kerry suggests this agreement is the best achievable with an
Iran hell-bent on preserving its uranium enrichment rights. He
warns, if not approved by Congress, “We will have squandered the
best chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful
means.”
Knowing his “war is not the answer” tune played well to
Congress when he sang it 44 years ago during the Vietnam
conflict, throwing his fellow Vietnam war veterans under the bus
in the process, Kerry sings it today to sway congressional opinion
once again. This time it is our national security being thrown
under the bus. …
How are these commentaries alike? How are they different?
“Monsanto's Harvest of Fear”
(published in Vanity Fair)
“Why Does Monsanto Sue
Farmers Who Save Seeds?”
(posted on Monsanto website)
Paper 3 (Comparison; due 10/13/15)
Read "Monsanto's Harvest of Fear" (pp 683-704) and "Why Does Monsanto Sue
Farmers Who Save Seeds?" (pp 875-79). Write a paper of at least 800 words (i.e.,
longer than two pages) in which you identify and describe a main difference
between these two articles. You should consider the author(s), their apparent
purposes, the strategies used, the venues of publication, and the context for each
piece. With this information in mind, generate and state a thesis in which you
identify for your reader -- someone unfamiliar with Monsanto or with genetically
modified seeds -- a major difference between these two articles. The body of the
paper should support your thesis with specific evidence from each article. You
may also use any background material provided in the textbook. The grade will
focus on the degree to which your thesis is supported by textual evidence, and on
the clarity of the presentation.
“Monsanto's Harvest of Fear”
(published in Vanity Fair)
“Why Does Monsanto Sue
Farmers Who Save Seeds?”
(posted on Monsanto website)
9/24
HW: summarize Monsanto articles, pp 683-704 and 875-79
9/29
10/1
Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear”; discuss in class
Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Does Monsanto Sue Farmers”; discuss in class
10/6
10/8
Bring bullet-point list of similarities and differences between Monsanto articles
Bring complete draft of Paper 3. HW: finish Paper 3 (Note: Parents’ Day is 10/10.)
10/13
Paper 3 (comparison) due (midterm week).
9/24 – 9/29
9/29 – 10/1
“Monsanto's Harvest of Fear”
(published in Vanity Fair)
“Why Does Monsanto Sue
Farmers Who Save Seeds?”
(posted on Monsanto website)
9/24
HW: summarize Monsanto articles, pp 683-704 and 875-79
9/29
10/1
Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear”; discuss in class
Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Does Monsanto Sue Farmers”; discuss in class
10/6
10/8
Bring bullet-point list of similarities and differences between Monsanto articles
Bring complete draft of Paper 3. HW: finish Paper 3 (Note: Parents’ Day is 10/10.)
10/13
Paper 3 (comparison) due (midterm week).
10/1 – 10/6
10/6 – 10/8
Use remaining class time to begin reading
and annotating the Monsanto articles. You
are welcome – and encouraged – to discuss
the articles with classmates.