MLA guidelines outline how to provide just enough information when we quote or paraphrase in the course of the essay so that readers can look up the full description of the source in the Works Cited page. In-text citations should appear at the end of the quoted or paraphrased material.

differentiate between our words and ideas and our sources’ words and ideas and locate the original source.

Visit the Modern Language Association website to see an example of a student paper following MLA guidelines. You can also read more on the MLA website about correctly formatting your document.

Microsoft Word

The simplest way to get the format right is to use a template.

The second part of the entry is the summary and evaluation of the evidence being cited

MLA format

The top of the entry is the citation. It is the part that lists information like the name of the writer, where the evidence appeared, the date of publication, and other publishing information.

As you assess your evidence and further develop your thesis through the writing process, you may need to seek additional sources.

One strategy is to brainstorm keywords and keep track of what you have tried in a table like this one

A great approach is to find the top journals in the specific field of your course and browse through recent issues to see what people are publishing on.

"Cited by 392...Related Articles...All 5 versions...Cite...Save."

"The Economics of Crime Deterrence: A survey of theory and evidence."

An increasingly popular article database is Google Scholar. It looks like a regular Google search, and it aspires to include the vast majority of published scholarship. Google doesn’t share a list of which journals they include or how Google Scholar works, which limits its utility for scholars. Also, because it’s so wide-ranging, it can be harder to find the most appropriate sources. However, if you want to cast a wide net, it’s a very useful tool. Here are three tips for using Google Scholar effectively: Add your field (economics, psychology, French, etc.) as one of your keywords. If you just put in “crime,” for example, Google Scholar will return all sorts of stuff from sociology, psychology, geography, and history. If your paper is on crime in French literature, your best sources may be buried under thousands of papers from other disciplines. A set of search terms like “crime French literature modern” will get you to relevant sources much faster. Don’t ever pay for an article. When you click on links to articles in Google Scholar, you may end up on a publisher’s site that tells you that you can download the article for $20 or $30. Don’t do it! You probably have access to virtually all the published academic literature through your library resources. Write down the key information (authors’ names, title, journal title, volume, issue number, year, page numbers) and go find the article through your library website. If you don’t have immediate full-text access, you may be able to get it through inter-library loan. Use the “cited by” feature. If you get one great hit on Google Scholar, you can quickly see a list of other papers that cited it. For example, the search terms “crime economics” yielded this hit for a 1988 paper that appeared in a journal called Kyklos:

Understanding the academic publication process and the structure of scholarly articles tells you a lot about how to find, read and use these sources: Find them quickly. Instead of paging through mountains of dubious web content, go right to the relevant scholarly article databases in order to quickly find the highest quality sources. Use the abstracts. Abstracts tell you immediately whether or not the article you’re holding is relevant or useful to the paper you’re assigned to write. You shouldn’t ever have the experience of reading the whole paper just to discover it’s not useful. Read strategically. Knowing the anatomy of a scholarly article tells you what you should be reading for in each section. For example, you don’t necessarily need to understand every nuance of the literature review. You can just focus on why the authors claim that their own study is distinct from the ones that came before. Don’t sweat the technical stuff. Not every social scientist understands the intricacies of log-linear modeling of quantitative survey data; however, the reviewers definitely do, and they found the analysis to be well constructed. Thus, you can accept the findings as legitimate and just focus on the passages that explain the findings and their significance in plainer language. Use one article to find others. If you have one really good article that’s a few years old, you can use article databases to find newer articles that cited it in their own literature reviews. That immediately tells you which ones are on the same topic and offer newer findings. On the other hand, if your first source is very recent, the literature review section will describe the other papers in the same line of research. You can look them up directly.

Academic papers are essentially reports that scholars write to their peers—present and future—about what they’ve done in their research, what they’ve found, and why they think it’s important. Thus, in a lot of fields they often have a structure reminiscent of the lab reports you’ve written for science classes: Abstract: A one-paragraph summary of the article: its purpose, methods, findings, and significance. Introduction: An overview of the key question or problem that the paper addresses, why it is important, and the key conclusion(s) (i.e., thesis or theses) of the paper. Literature review: A synthesis of all the relevant prior research (the so-called “academic literature” on the subject) that explains why the paper makes an original and important contribution to the body of knowledge. Data and methods: An explanation of what data or information the author(s) used and what they did with it. Results: A full explanation of the key findings of the study. Conclusion/discussion: Puts the key findings or insights from the paper into their broader context; explains why they matter.

Tier 4. Agenda-driven or pieces from unknown sources This tier is essentially everything else, including Wikipedia.4 These types of sources—especially Wikipedia—can be hugely helpful in identifying interesting topics, positions within a debate, keywords to search on, and, sometimes, higher-tier sources on the topic. They often play a critically important role in the early part of the research process, but they generally aren’t (and shouldn’t be) cited in the final paper. Throwing some keywords into Google and seeing what you get is a fine way to get started, but don’t stop there. Start a list of the people, organizations, sources, and keywords that seem most relevant to your topic. For example, suppose you’ve been assigned a research paper about the impact of linen production and trade on the ancient world. A quick Google search reveals that (1) linen comes from the flax plant, (2) the scientific name for flax is Linum usitatissimum, (3) Egypt dominated linen production at the height of its empire, and (4) Alex J. Warden published a book about ancient linen trade in 1867. Similarly, you found some useful search terms to try instead of “ancient world” (antiquity, Egyptian empire, ancient Egypt, ancient Mediterranean) and some generalizations for linen (fabric, textiles, or weaving). Now you’ve got a lot to work with as you tap into the library catalog and academic article databases.

Types of Sources Tier Type Content Uses How to find them 1 Peer-reviewed academic publications Rigorous research and analysis Provide strong evidence for claims and references to other high-quality sources Google Scholar, library catalogs, and academic article databases 2 Reports, articles, and books from credible non-academic sources Well researched and even-handed descriptions of an event or state of the world Initial research on events or trends not yet analyzed in the academic literature; may reference important Tier 1 sources Websites of relevant agencies, Google searches using (site: *.gov or site: *.org), academic article databases 3 Short pieces from newspapers or credible websites Simple reporting of events, research findings, or policy changes Often point to useful Tier 2 or Tier 1 sources, may provide a factoid or two not found anywhere else Strategic Google searches or article databases including newspapers and magazines 4 Agenda-driven or uncertain pieces Mostly opinion, varying in thoughtfulness and credibility May represent a particular position within a debate; more often provide keywords and clues about higher quality sources Non-specific Google searches

You probably know by now that if you cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source, the wrath of your professor shall be visited upon you. Why is it that even the most informative Wikipedia articles are still often considered illegitimate? And what are good sources to use? The table below summarizes types of secondary sources in four tiers. All sources have their legitimate uses, but the top-tier ones are preferable for citation.

Combine research findings from multiple sources to make a larger summary argument. You might find that none of the sources you’re working with specifically claim that early 20th-century British literature was preoccupied with changing gender roles but that, together, their findings all point to that broader conclusion. Combine research findings from multiple sources to make a claim about their implications. You might review papers that explore various factors shaping voting behavior to argue that a particular voting-reform proposal will likely have positive impacts. Identify underlying areas of agreement. You may argue that the literature on cancer and the literature on violence both describe the unrecognized importance of prevention and early intervention. This similarity will support your claim that insights about one set of problems may be useful for the other. Identify underlying areas of disagreement. You may find that the controversies surrounding educational reform—and its debates about accountability, curricula, school funding—ultimately stem from different assumptions about the role of schools in society. Identify unanswered questions. Perhaps you review studies of the genetic and behavioral contributors to diabetes in order to highlight unknown factors and argue for more in-depth research on the role of the environment.

Before we start talking about how to choose search terms and where to search for sources, it can help to get a sense of what we’re hoping to get out of the research. We might think that in order to support a thesis we should only look for sources that prove an idea we want to promote. But since writing academic papers is about joining a conversation, what we really need is to gather the sources that will help us situate our ideas within that ongoing conversation. What we should look for first is not support but the conversation itself: who is saying what about our topic? The sources that make up the conversation may have various kinds of points to make and ultimately may play very different roles in our paper. After all, as we have seen in Chapter 2, an argument can involve not just evidence for a claim but limits, counterarguments, and rebuttals. Sometimes we will want to cite a research finding that provides strong evidence for a point; at other times, we will summarize someone else’s ideas in order to explain how our own opinion differs or to note how someone else’s concept applies to a new situation.  As you find sources on a topic, look for points of connection, similarity and difference between them. In your paper, you will need to show not just what each one says, but how they relate to each other in a conversation.  Describing this conversation can be the springboard for your own original point.

Developing a research question  Knowing what question we are trying to answer can help us research efficiently. Before we start, we can use our focused topic to articulate a research question.  If we already have a guess as to what our answer is likely to be, we may want to articulate that as well in what is sometimes called a working thesis. We can come up with a hypothesis that we will test against the information you find in sources as we research. Keep in mind, we may want to modify the question and the hypothesis as we learn more.  A good research question will be challenging or potentially arguable.  It will suggest the need for further investigation. Here are three possible research questions related to the topic above: Should we build more large-scale Concentrated Solar Power thermal energy plants like the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility? What are the environmental and social benefits of a large-scale Concentrated Solar Power thermal energy plant like the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility? Under what circumstances will large-scale Concentrated Solar Power thermal energy plants like the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility be cost-effective choices for clean energy? As we research, we can revisit our research question from time to time to see if we are on track to answer it or if we need to change the question or the research.

Let’s take the example of solar energy as a general area of interest.  As we research solar energy, we will see that there are different ways of harnessing the energy--from the sun’s light and from the sun’s heat.  These correspond to the subtopics of solar photovoltaic energy and solar thermal energy. Say may decide we are more interested in solar thermal energy. We research that topic further and find that the sun’s heat can be used to heat water in buildings or to heat the ventilation system, but they can also be used to generate electricity in large solar thermal power plants using a technique called Concentrated Solar Power, or CSP. Let’s say that last use intrigues us.  However, as we start to read the technical details of how these power plants work, we realize we are more interested in the potential of these plants than in their engineering.  We are excited to read about the largest existing solar thermal power plant, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert of California, and we wonder how that facility can serve as a model for others. So the sequence of topics as we narrow it down goes like this: Solar energy Solar thermal energy The Concentrated Solar Power technique for using solar thermal power to generate electricity The potential renewable energy contribution of Concentrated Solar Power thermal energy plants Ivanpah Solar Power Facility as a model for renewable electricity through large-scale Concentrated Solar Power thermal energy plants

We can start with any general area of interest within the guidelines of the research essay prompt. See Section 11.3: Brainstorming on ways to come up with ideas. In most cases, as we research we will want to narrow our topic from this general beginning in order to be able to really dive into the conversation on the topic and consider multiple perspectives and counterarguments. We will likely learn about many subtopics as we explore our initial topic. If we read an overview of the initial topic, we can often identify subtopics by the way that overview is organized into sections. Though Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, it can be very helpful for this phase of the research process. Along the way, we can decide which we are interested in, research some more, and possibly narrow the topic yet further — all before attempting a rough draft. 

The steps below will help us analyze the essay prompt to get a clear picture of what the finished paper should include. Circle or highlight all of the most important verbs in the essay prompt. Verbs are action words that often communicate the most important requirements, like analyze, evaluate, describe, and so on.  Then, create a chart that lists the most important verbs on one side and the rest of the sentence on the other side. Use this chart as an example. This will contain the most important components of the assignment. You may use this to create a final draft checklist. Put a star next to the most important sections of the prompt, such as where the main writing task is summarized. Underline or highlight any words or requirements you don’t understand, and ask your professor to clarify. Summarize the research essay prompt aloud by telling a friend or classmate what your assignment is about and the major requirements. This chapter will guide you on what authoritative sources are, where to find them, and how to choose them, but always take your instructor’s specific instructions into consideration.

we need to know how to choose sources that we can connect into a description of a conversation on a specific topic. The rest of this chapter will give guidance on these challenges.

The research paper is the ultimate tool for academia, the ultimate tool for slow thinking.  

Many students, after some initial anxiety, ultimately find the research paper to be empowering and meaningful.  Here are some of the aspects of the research paper to appreciate: We become relative experts on one micro subject. We build our own argument and choose our focus. We are free to use a variety of sources as needed. We don’t have to cover everything.  We have flexibility about which ideas from each source to include and how to narrow our topic so it isn’t overwhelming. We pick our own sources; we don’t have to use what a teacher selected. We can choose a topic that is personally meaningful because it connects to an area of interest, personal experience, or career plans. We get to teach the teacher and our classmates something they may well enjoy learning.

the research paper is “the highest expression of the conversational approach to writing...it is a chance to practice a set of skills that you can use the rest of your life: going out into the community, finding a space for yourself, and making a contribution of your own” (219).

It’s

5.8: Brainstorming Tool for Response Writing

Ultimately, Eligon points to personal intuition as an aid to individuals in the Black community grappling with these questions. He describes the experience of sociologist Crystal M. Fleming, whose use of lowercase “black” transformed to capitalized “Black” over the course of her career and years of research. Her transition from black to Black is, she says, as much a matter of personal choice as a reasoned conclusion—suggesting that it will be up to Black journalists and academics to determine the conventions of the future. (Note: This last sentence of this summary paragraph focuses on Eligon's conclusion, his implied argument about what should guide the choice of terms.) Eligon's statistical and anecdotal survey of current usage of Black and black covers enough ground to convince us of the trend in favor of capitalization. (Note: This sentence indicates the shift from summary to a positive assessment of the argument's effectiveness.) But the value of Eligon's article lies in the attention it brings both to the convention and the discussion as a way for the Black community to wrestle with history and define itself.  By presenting a variety of past and present opinions from Black leaders, Eligon gives a sense of the richness and relevance of this ongoing debate.  (Note: this part of the assessment emphasizes not just what is effective at convincing readers, but what is most valuable about the argument.) His focus at the end on the opinion of one Black scholar, Crystal Fleming, offers an appealing intuitive approach to these decisions about naming. This idea is more hinted at than developed, leaving us to wonder how many other leaders share Fleming's approach and whether this approach might lead to chaos, as each writer might choose a different way to refer to racial identity. (Note: This last sentence offers a gentle critique of the limits of Eligon's evidence on this last point and the existence of possible counterarguments that are not addressed.) Still, Eligon's ending leaves us hopeful about the positive outcome of continuing the discussion: perhaps decisions about naming can help the Black community find self-definition in the face of historical injustice. We could build on Eligon's analysis to make a further claim about success not just of Black but of other terms that remind us of a shared history of oppression.  Despite the ongoing debates, his evidence suggests that the Black community has gravitated more toward reclaiming negative terms rather than inventing neutral ones.  (Note: The writer suggests a way to draw a new conclusion using Eligon's evidence.) He notes that historically, W.E.B Dubois's push to embrace Negro and transform it into a positive was successful and that the Black Power movement did the same with black. It is true that the term African American has been partially successful, but clearly its relevance is waning: Eligon scarcely considers it necessary to mention this term further as he turns to the discussion of black vs. Black. The Black Lives Matter movement chose Black rather than African American, and this choice continued to feel appropriate when the movement grew dramatically after the killing of George Floyd. (Note: The writer points to ideas that were implied but not emphasized by Eligon.)  Why has the Black community continued to gravitate toward previously negative terms? Perhaps in this time of racial reckoning, in the face of active ongoing injustice, a label that points to the history of oppression is more empowering. It expresses defiance and determination. If so, perhaps it would make sense for The New York Times to adopt Black.  Eligon does not take a side on this issue, perhaps because he is not writing an opinion piece, but it is a short distance from his piece to a piece advocating that the Times follow the lead of the Associated Press and the majority of Black leaders of the moment. (Note: Here, the response claims that a particular stance on a controversial issue follows from Eligon's argument.) Howard Zinn, radical author of A People's History of the United States, writes, “The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away, and for such people, with such memories, revolt is always an inch below the surface.”  Reclaiming an oppressor's name for a people keeps this memory, and this potential for revolt, alive. Ideally, each time we use such a reclaimed term, we remember that inequity still permeates our society, and we recommit ourselves to fighting its many forms. (Note: The essay suggests a way in which this discussion of terms for an oppressed community can inspire us to fight oppression more broadly.) Eligon focuses only on the Black community in America, but it would be interesting to learn more about the appeal of reclaiming negative terms by looking at trends among other marginalized groups. (Note: This passage adds to the conversation by suggesting parallels to groups beyond the Black community.) Which ones have chosen to embrace once-hateful terms, and which have chosen new, more accurate, more inclusive names? Does reclaiming negative terms become more common when oppression is more active? One obvious example lies in the reclaiming of the term "queer." Despite ongoing marginalization of queer people, the reclaimed term never gained dominance.  "LGBTQ" and variations are used more commonly, despite their awkwardness.  Another parallel lies in the debate over the use of Indian vs. Native American vs. indigenous. The term "cholo," too, was initially a slur referring to persons of mixed Amerindian ancestry in Bolivia and Peru, but is now used by some as a badge of indigenous pride and power.  (It has various other meanings in Mexico, the United States, and in other Latin American countries.) Future discussions could analyze the historical trends in terminology and their relation to changing power relations for each of these groups. Perhaps comparing these histories could shed new light on the complex role of names in the struggle for social justice.  

John Eligon's New York Times article, “A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ or ‘black’?” outlines the ongoing conversation among journalists and academics regarding conventions for writing about race—specifically, whether or not to capitalize the “b” in “black” when referring to African-Americans (itself a term that is going out of style). (Note: The opening sentence introduces the text this essay will respond to and gives a brief summary of the text's content.) Eligon argues that, while it might seem like a minor typographical issue, this small difference speaks to the question of how we think about race in the United States. Are words like “black” or “white” mere adjectives, descriptors of skin color? Or are they proper nouns, indicative of group or ethnic identity? Eligon observes that until recently, with the prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement, many journalistic and scholarly publications tended to use a lowercase “black,” while Black media outlets  typically capitalized “Black.”  He suggests that the balance is now tipping in favor of "Black," but given past changes, usage will probably change again as the rich discussion about naming, identity, and power continues. (Note: The thesis statement includes two related ideas explored by Eligon: the current trend toward using "Black" and the value of the ongoing discussion that leads to changing terms.) Eligon points to a range of evidence that "Black" is becoming the norm, including a recent change by "hundreds of news organizations" including the Associated Press. This comes in the wake of the George Floyd killing, but it also follows a longtime Black press tradition exemplified by newspapers like The New York Amsterdam News. Eligon cites several prominent academics who are also starting to capitalize Black.  However, he also quotes prominent naysayers and describes a variety of counterarguments, like the idea that capitalization gives too much dignity to a category that was made up to oppress people.  (Note: Summary of a counterargument.) Capitalizing Black raises another tricky question: Shouldn't White be likewise capitalized? Eligon points out that the groups most enthusiastic to capitalize White seem to be white supremacists, and news organizations want to avoid this association.    (Note: The choice of "points out" signals that everyone would agree that mostly white supremacist groups capitalize White.)  Eligon's brief history of the debate over racial labels, from “Negro” and “colored” to “African-American” and “person of color,” gives the question of to-capitalize-or-not-to-capitalize a broader context, investing what might seem like a minor quibble for editors with the greater weight of racial identity and its evolution over time. (Note: This paragraph shifts focus from present to past trends and debates.) He outlines similar disagreements over word-choice and racial labels by scholars and activists like Fannie Barrier Williams and W.E.B. Du Bois surrounding now-antiquated terms like “Negro” and “colored.” These leaders debated whether labels with negative connotations should be replaced, or embraced and given a new, positive connotation. (Note: This paragraph summarizes the historical examples Eligon gives. Phrases like "He cites" point out that certain ideas are being used to support a claim.) Eligon observes that today's "black" was once used as a pejorative but was promoted by the Black Power movement starting in the late sixties, much as the word "Negro" was reclaimed as a positive word. (Note: Summary of a historical trend that parallels today's trend.) However, the Reverend Jesse Jackson also had some success in calling for a more neutral term, "African American," in the late eighties.  He thought it more appropriate to emphasize a shared ethnic heritage over color.   (Note: Summary of a historical countertrend based on a counterargument to the idea of reclaiming negative terms.) Eligon suggests that this argument continues to appeal to some today, but that such terms have been found to be inadequate given the diversity of ethnic heritage. “African-American” and the more generalized “people/person of color” do not give accurate or specific enough information.  (Note: Describes a response to the counterargument, a justification of today's trend toward Black.) 

One of the most challenging aspects of the Pandemic for dual-income parents is the school and daycare closures. (Note: Whereas the first support focused on gender roles, the second paragraph focuses on the particular challenges for parents during the Covid-19 epidemic.) These dual-earner parents should find a way to split children’s needs during the shelter-in-place. If they do not balance paid work and child care, both sides will feel the consequences. To emphasize these consequences, Lewis humorously says “Dual-income couples might suddenly be living like their grandparents, one homemaker, and one breadwinner.” (Note: Drawing on evidence from the text, this passage shows how gender roles relate to the challenges of Covid-19 for working parents and families.) Instead of splitting the housework, women take the role of “homemaker” so the author implies here that this regresses gender dynamics two generations backward. It obviously demonstrates that nothing much has changed over time and the mentality remains. While many couples are trying to find a middle way, others think that women have to suck it up and sacrifice their jobs. In reference to school closures, Lewis brings up the Ebola health crisis which occurred in West Africa in the time period of 2014-2016. (Note: The following paragraph cites a historical precedent for the Covid-19 outbreak as a basis for comparison.) According to Lewis, during this outbreak, many African girls lost their chance at education; moreover, many women died during childbirth because of a lack of medical care. Mentioning these elaborations proves once again that not only coronavirus but also many other outbreaks have caused a disaster for feminism. Pandemics, in other words, pile yet another problem on women who always face an uphill battle against patriarchal structures. (Note: This passage ties this observation about the Ebola outbreak in West Africa to a greater observation about Pandemics and gender roles overall.) I started reading her article with a feeling of frustration. While the main topic of the article is feminism, Lewis gives a couple of male examples from the past, such as William Shakespeare and Isaac Newton. (Note: The author makes a personal note here, marking an emotional connection and reaction to the text.) She seems at times to attribute their success to their masculinity. They both lived in times of plague, demonstrating that despite all our progress, the human species is still grappling with the same issues. According to Lewis, neither Newton nor Shakespeare had to worry about childcare or housework. Even though her comparison seemed odd to me, she managed to surprise me that in over 300 years many gender inequities remain the same. This is actually very tragic. It is hard to acknowledge that women are still facing gender inequality in almost every area even 300 years after the time of these great English thinkers. (Note: The author cites historical precedent again: this passage argues that the relationship between plagues and gender roles has not changed much in centuries.) Assuming housework is the natural place of women without asking women if they want to do it is asking for too big a sacrifice. Since couples have the option to split the housework and childcare, why should only women have to shoulder most of the burden? This is a question that I might never be able to answer, even if I search my whole life. It is unacceptable that there is pressure on women to conform to gender roles, such as cultural settings and expectations. (Note: The author uses a rhetorical question to segue into a new supporting argument.) Women should not have to sacrifice their leisure time completing unpaid work. I agree with Lewis when she mentions the “second shift” situation. When we consider women’s first shift as their paid work, the second shift represents the time that they spend working in the home. In this case, there is apparently no shift for leisure time. Lewis also supports this by saying “Across the world, women—including those with jobs—do more housework and have less leisure time than their male partners.” Additionally, it seems like economic recovery is going to be long-lasting because of the Coronavirus. As a solution, if men and women have equal housework responsibilities, women may spend more of their time completing paid work. (Note: The author makes a call to action near the end of the essay.) In this way, they can contribute to the economy while they are socializing. Especially after the Pandemic is over, we will need a greater workforce, so hopefully both men and women can equally participate in the economy. (Note: Much like the first sentence of the essay, the last sentence speaks to a greater, big-picture context: the need for equality in a post-pandemic world.)

Spread Feminism, Not Germs COVID-19 is not the first outbreak in history and probably won’t be the last one. (Note: The opening statement provides the essay's overall context: the effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic.) However, its effects will be long-lasting. (Note: The followup statement introduces the essay's particular focus: the impact of the Pandemic on women.) While the Pandemic has affected everyone’s lives in every aspect, its impacts on women are even more severe. Helen Lewis, the author of “The Coronavirus Is a Disaster for Feminism” explains why feminism cannot survive during the Pandemic. (Note: An outside text is introduced that the essay will engage with.) Lewis starts her article with a complaint by saying “enough already” because, in terms of housework especially for child care, there has been inequality since the past. This inequality has become even more explicit with the coronavirus outbreak. Women have to shoulder not only more housework but also childcare more than ever due to school closures. The Pandemic started as a public health crisis and brought along an economic one. Women are mainly affected by this crisis more than men because women are more likely to take housework and childcare responsibilities while men are expected to work and “bring home the bacon.” (Note: The author provides a clear thesis statement to close the opening (introduction) paragraph).) Each gender has a different role in society. While men are usually seen as breadwinners, women mostly spend their time at home and do housework. (Note: The first supporting argument: the unpaid labor of women under traditional gender roles.) Women also are the primary caregivers for both children and elders. As Lewis mentions, “looking after” duty is on women’s shoulder. Then she adds “ all this looking after—this unpaid caring labor—will fall more heavily on women because of the existing structure of the workforce,” and she includes a provocative question from Clare Wenham, an assistant professor of global health policy at the London School of Economics: “Who is paid less? Who has the flexibility?” The author intentionally uses this quote to express her frustration. At the same time, she implies that this existing structure is based upon the gender pay gap. (Note: The author supports her argument with evidence from the text, and provides analysis to tie that evidence to her argument.) We all are familiar with the reality that “women’s income is less than men’s” so this fact goes a long way towards explaining why women mainly stay at home and take caregiving responsibilities. It is a kind of survival rule that whoever earns less should stay at home. In this case, it seems like couples do not have many options.

In "Spread Feminism, Not Germs," student Gizem Gur summarizes, assesses, and responds to the Atlantic Magazine article "The Coronavirus Is a Disaster for Feminism." Annotations point out how Gur structures the response paper.   Sample response paper "Spread Feminism, Not Germs" in PDF with margin notes     Sample response paper "Spread Feminism, Not Germs" accessible version with notes in parentheses     In "Typography and Identity," Saramanda Swigart summarizes, assesses, and responds to the New York Times article “A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ or ‘black’?” Annotations point out how Swigart structures the response paper. Sample response paper "Typography and Identity" in PDF with margin notes  Sample response paper "Typography and Identity" accessible version with notes in parentheses 

5.7: Sample Response Essays

Introduce alternate claims Instead of _____________, I would argue that _____________. A more accurate claim would be _____________. In actuality, _____________. The idea that _____________ better accounts for  the evidence. We can find a better explanation of _____________ in _____________. As we have seen, it is not true that _____________. Rather, _____________.

Suggest ways to spread the word We could help spread awareness of _____________ by _____________. The idea that _____________ should be taught in _____________ classes. We should all talk to those we know about _____________.

Underscore the importance of an argument X’s claim is important because _____________. This is especially concerning because _____________. We should take note of this since _____________.

Introduce alternative or additional reasons  Better evidence for _____________ lies in _____________. Another reason why _____________ is that _____________. The fact that _____________ provides further support for X’s claim. My own experience has also shown that _____________ , which leads me to agree with X. I have seen firsthand how _____________. In addition to the evidence X gives, it is also worth considering that _____________.

Point to further implications  The idea that _____________ could apply to _____________ as well. Beyond _____________, X’s argument has implications for _____________. This argument shows how important it is that we take action on _____________. If we accept the idea that _____________, as we should, then the time has come to _____________. Given X’s points, shouldn’t we consider _____________?

Suggest a limit to the claim We should recognize that this pattern is limited to cases where _____________. The argument holds true in situations where _____________. It is important to note that this claim only applies to _____________. _____________ is a notable exception because _____________. We should note that this claim is certainly not true of _____________.

Call for support and research Further research on _____________ could show us _____________. A study of _____________ might show whether _____________. Is it really the case that _____________? We need more information about _____________. An investigation of _____________ could help us determine the role of _____________ in _____________.

Call for clarification X should specify whether they mean _____________ or _____________. X should explain what they mean by _____________. X should elaborate on the concept of _____________.

Reframe the issue Instead of focusing on _____________, we should look at the question in the light of _____________. A better way to frame the issue of _____________ would be in terms of _____________. To better understand _____________, we should first ask ourselves _____________.

Suggest an alternate claim that addresses the same issue If we just analyzed an argument we found to be weak, we may already have an opposing argument or an alternate argument in mind. If readers are convinced that the first argument is without merit, they will be looking for a replacement. Our critique puts us in a good position to present an alternate vision.  In the example above, the student Anoush could give her take on where the fashion industry is right now in terms of inclusion. She might argue that the industry needs to represent a greater range of ethnicities and sizes and make sure that diverse models are shown as regular people, not as exotic.   The following phrases introduce alternate claims:  Instead of _____________, I would argue that _____________. A more accurate claim would be _____________. In actuality, _____________. The idea that _____________ better accounts for  the evidence. We can find a better explanation of _____________ in _____________. As we have seen, it is not true that _____________. Rather, _____________.

If we can’t agree with the argument’s main claim, we probably have some ideas of our own on the subject. For example, let’s say a student, let’s call her Anoush, has just read an article that celebrates the fashion industry’s inclusion of multiple ethnicities and body types. Let’s say Anoush is not impressed with the fashion industry’s efforts. She has critiqued the article, but she knows that her readers may not be satisfied if she stops there. If the article was wrong, then what would a better article on the topic look like?   We don’t always have to have a fully formed or researched argument to put our own ideas into a college essay. If our main task is to summarize and assess with just a little response, this part can be tentative and not fully developed.  The idea is to point the reader in a new direction. We may want to qualify or limit our suggestion with words like “perhaps,” “it may be that,” or “The idea that _____________ is worth considering…”  

Sometimes we forget that agreement doesn’t have to be the end of a conversation.  The process of assessing an argument starts us thinking about all the issues it brings up, and primes us to add our own two cents.

Give a new reason  Sometimes we may agree with an argument’s claim, but for a different reason.  In that case, we can make an original contribution just by pointing out the alternate reason.  In other cases, we might just want to add one or more reasons to the list already covered by the argument. Maybe we are aware of evidence from another reading or from our own experience, or maybe we see a whole different line of reasoning which also leads us to the same conclusion.  For example, we noted in Section 4.4 that in the argument below, the reason was the same as the claim, so the claim had no support at all (a fallacy called circular reasoning). Anyone born in the United States has a right to citizenship because citizenship here depends on birth, not ethnicity or family history of immigration. As a response to that argument, we could suggest a better reason for the same claim: Anyone born in the United States has a right to citizenship because the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.

Call for clarification If one of the problems is vagueness or ambiguity, we probably want to call for greater clarity. We can suggest that the writer specify what they mean by a particular word or phrase.  Or we may want to ask that they explain a murky point further.  We can call for clarification with phrases like the following: X should specify whether they mean _____________ or _____________. X should explain what they mean by _____________. X should elaborate on the concept of _____________.

Call for additional support or study The process of analyzing the argument will often lead us to see what it is that we do not know. It may expose areas of uncertainty or contradiction that are intriguing. If we have called into question a reason or an assumption, we may want to recommend further research or support. Perhaps we are not ready to accept something without more evidence. In that case, we might describe the kind of study or investigative journalism that could uncover a reason.  If we have thought of exceptions, then maybe the reason needs more support to show that the exceptions are not common. For example, we might suggest that the writer should present some statistical evidence, like a survey, to show what the norm is, rather than just a few examples. The following sample sentence summarizes and assesses an argument and then moves on to recommend additional support: While Swigart is right that porous borders pose a security risk and that illegal immigration challenges the rule of law, her argument would have been strengthened if she had added statistics linking gang violence to human trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Maybe, in our assessment of the argument, we found exceptions to it or a whole set of circumstances under which it doesn’t hold up. We can advance the conversation by qualifying or limiting the original argument.  One way to do so is to state that the argument only applies in a certain set of cases.  Another way is to acknowledge one or more individual exceptions to it.  Limiting an argument often helps to defend it against a counterargument.

How would you suggest limiting each of the following arguments?  Can you point out an exception? Does the claim only apply under specific circumstances? People are more comfortable with video meetings now than they were before the pandemic. Education should be free. Love is a force for good. People should not share videos of others without permission.

Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc all encourage responses; we read a post and then add our own comment as we react, reply, share, or retweet. Of course email, texting, messageboards, forums, blogs and some news media also invite original commentary. Practicing academic response writing, then, can enrich our repertoire of responses in everyday life. 

Uses in college, work, and life Many college writing assignments call for responses that go beyond agreeing or disagreeing with an argument. The response can be a place to bring in opinion and personal experience as they relate to the argument. Even if an assessment assignment doesn’t specifically ask for a recommendation, it often makes sense to add one to a conclusion. Whether we agreed or disagreed with the argument, pointing toward a next step for the larger conversation on the issue can give the essay a sense of momentum and purpose. 

A chance to express ourselves Our voices matter.  Much of this book thus far has focused on how to summarize and evaluate other people’s arguments, but those are only first steps.  Other people’s arguments help us develop our own.  Writing summaries and assessments can inspire us to come up with our own original points. Academic writing gives us the chance to join a worldwide conversation about what is true on every subject under the sun. 

an assessment starts with a summary of the argument.

Try putting the strengths and weaknesses in order from most important to least important.  This may help us decide what to highlight in our thesis. 

make a list of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument that emerged as we checked the argument for clarity, evidence, assumptions, exceptions, and counterarguments

Anderson’s attack on transgender identity does clearly represent the reasoning of those who object to recognizing transgender identity. Thus, it provides opportunities for transgender activitsts to clarify their own positions and correct common misconceptions.

Sometimes we see value not in the content of the argument but in the focus it brings to a topic.

straw man fallacy

If it falls, this boulder will not roll far; the slope is not slippery

The red herring fallacy gets its name from the actual fish. When herring are smoked, they turn red and are quite pungent. Stinky things can be used to distract hunting dogs, who of course follow the trail of their quarry by scent; if you pass over that trail with a stinky fish and run off in a different direction, the hound may be distracted and follow the wrong trail

We will need to identify these assumptions on our own.

By first recognizing and then changing our assumptions, we can, to use a common phrase, “think outside the box.”

find out what assumptions it makes and check those assumptions

An assessment could note that at the very least the argument should have mentioned this later apology when it quoted Spitzer.

variety of kinds of evidence

we need to know whether that institution is credible.

negative stereotypes

a writer may end up summarizing that belief again in a different way. Other times the writer may knowingly perform this sleight of hand, hoping the reader will not notice.

We should all support reproductive justice

The argument presents only two possibilities

The original argument does not mention any of these exceptions.  By pointing this out, we can show that the argument as expressed is invalid.

We will look at problems with the clarity of the claims, the solidity of the reasons, and the validity of the assumptions

Such a description is called a summary, and it forms part of most college writing assignments. In some cases, the summary will be the entire essay.

Thus the process of writing a summary helps us get even clearer about the writer’s intentions and implications than we would in mapping out an argument.

Negative claims of value The author criticizes_____________. She deplores____________. He finds fault in_____________. They regret that_____________. They complain that_____________. The authors are disappointed in_____________.

Positive claims of value  They praise_____________. He celebrates_____________. She applauds the notion that_____________. They endorse_____________. He admires_____________. She finds value in_____________. They rave about_____________.

Widely accepted claims of fact He informs us of _____________. She describes_____________. They note that _____________. He observes that _____________. She explains that _____________. The writer points out the way in which_____________.

Controversial claims of fact They argue that _____________. She maintains that _____________. He contends that _____________. They assert that _____________. She holds that _____________. He insists that _____________. She thinks_____________. They believe that_____________.

Introducing the argument In an article for _____________, writer _____________ discusses _____________. The recent account of _____________ by _____________ focuses on _____________. Writing in the journal _____________, the scholar _____________ argues that _____________.

More importantly, the two approaches to immigration might not be in such dramatic conflict as the authors would have us believe. A policy that expands legal immigration to families in desperate need, for instance, while still cracking down on illegal immigration could potentially satisfy both sides of the argument. This is the problem with many partisan issues today. While we spill ink proving the other wrong, we miss opportunities to find common ground on which to build. (Note: In the conclusion, the comparison between the two essays leads to a proposal for a way to satisfy the demands of both.)

In recent years, illegal immigration into the United States at the U.S.-Mexico border has become a divisive political topic, resulting in a widening partisan divide as to whose priorities we should privilege: the immigrants’ or the nation’s. (Note: The author establishes a frame of reference in the first sentence, referencing the cultural context surrounding illegal immigration.) Are we global citizens or American citizens first? Anna Mills’ “Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border?” and Saramanda Swigart's “The Weight of the World” offer opposing views on this controversial issue. (Note: Here are our grounds for comparison, wherein the author briefly summarizes the two stances on immigration.)While Mills considers us global citizens, arguing for compassion toward suffering in our reevaluation of immigration policies and practices, Swigart believes we must be American citizens first, pointing out the necessity for a nation to secure its borders and enforce its laws. (Note: Essay thesis)

The essay "Contested Territory" compares and contrasts two arguments on immigration: "Wouldn't We All Cross the Border" by Anna Mills and "The Weight of the World" by Saramanda Swigart. Annotations point out how the author structures the comparison.

While illegal immigrants crossing the border to the United States may come from desperate circumstances, it is unjust, impractical, and unrealistic for one nation to solve the problems of so many non-citizens. Illegal immigration challenges the rule of law. If laws can be broken simply because lawbreakers had good intentions, this suggests that obeying the law is merely optional—that the law is something to be obeyed only when it is convenient to do so. It is understandable that plenty of people who break the law do so with good intentions, but enforcement of the law cannot be reduced to investigations of intentions—it must ultimately spring from concrete actions. The truth is that illegal immigration presents a security risk. Because illegal immigrants are not tracked by any immigration agency and thus remain largely anonymous, it is impossible to verify which immigrants come in search of a new life and plan to abide by the laws of their host country and which do not. A porous border may allow for waves of well-meaning immigrants and their families to seek new lives in a new country, but no country should be blamed for wanting to secure its borders or its territory. An influx of immigration also strains a nation's resources. Understandably, in many cases, immigrants seeking shelter in the United States have left desperate circumstances and arrive seeking support. In a perfect world, this would not be a problem; however, because a nation's resources are finite, this means that the financial and material burden of taking care of incoming immigrants falls on their host county. In small, manageable numbers this isn’t a problem (this is what legal immigration is for) but one can see how a nation tasked with taking care of immigrants from around the world would be burdened beyond its resources if it must solve the whole world's humanitarian problems. Ultimately, we shouldn’t increase our tolerance of illegal border crossings. In order to address the plight of immigrants, maintain national security, and manage internal resources, all policy changes should involve balancing the needs of non-citizens with the needs of citizens before carefully and thoughtfully expanding legal immigration.

Typography and Identity John Eligon's New York Times article, “A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ or ‘black’?” outlines the ongoing conversation among journalists and academics regarding conventions for writing about race—specifically, whether or not to capitalize the “b” in “black” when referring to African-Americans (itself a term that is going out of style). (Note: The opening sentence introduces the text this essay will respond to and gives a brief summary of the text's content.) Eligon argues that, while it might seem like a minor typographical issue, this small difference speaks to the question of how we think about race in the United States. Are words like “black” or “white” mere adjectives, descriptors of skin color? Or are they proper nouns, indicative of group or ethnic identity? Eligon observes that until recently, with the prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement, many journalistic and scholarly publications tended to use a lowercase “black,” while Black media outlets  typically capitalized “Black.”  He suggests that the balance is now tipping in favor of "Black," but given past changes, usage will probably change again as the rich discussion about naming, identity, and power continues. (Note: The thesis statement includes two related ideas explored by Eligon: the current trend toward using "Black" and the value of the ongoing discussion that leads to changing terms.) Eligon points to a range of evidence that "Black" is becoming the norm, including a recent change by "hundreds of news organizations" including the Associated Press. This comes in the wake of the George Floyd killing, but it also follows a longtime Black press tradition exemplified by newspapers like The New York Amsterdam News. Eligon cites several prominent academics who are also starting to capitalize Black.  However, he also quotes prominent naysayers and describes a variety of counterarguments, like the idea that capitalization gives too much dignity to a category that was made up to oppress people.  (Note: Summary of a counterargument.) Capitalizing Black raises another tricky question: Shouldn't White be likewise capitalized? Eligon points out that the groups most enthusiastic to capitalize White seem to be white supremacists, and news organizations want to avoid this association.    (Note: The choice of "points out" signals that everyone would agree that mostly white supremacist groups capitalize White.)  Eligon's brief history of the debate over racial labels, from “Negro” and “colored” to “African-American” and “person of color,” gives the question of to-capitalize-or-not-to-capitalize a broader context, investing what might seem like a minor quibble for editors with the greater weight of racial identity and its evolution over time. (Note: This paragraph shifts focus from present to past trends and debates.) He outlines similar disagreements over word-choice and racial labels by scholars and activists like Fannie Barrier Williams and W.E.B. Du Bois surrounding now-antiquated terms like “Negro” and “colored.” These leaders debated whether labels with negative connotations should be replaced, or embraced and given a new, positive connotation. (Note: This paragraph summarizes the historical examples Eligon gives. Phrases like "He cites" point out that certain ideas are being used to support a claim.) Eligon observes that today's "black" was once used as a pejorative but was promoted by the Black Power movement starting in the late sixties, much as the word "Negro" was reclaimed as a positive word. (Note: Summary of a historical trend that parallels today's trend.) However, the Reverend Jesse Jackson also had some success in calling for a more neutral term, "African American," in the late eighties.  He thought it more appropriate to emphasize a shared ethnic heritage over color.   (Note: Summary of a historical countertrend based on a counterargument to the idea of reclaiming negative terms.) Eligon suggests that this argument continues to appeal to some today, but that such terms have been found to be inadequate given the diversity of ethnic heritage. “African-American” and the more generalized “people/person of color” do not give accurate or specific enough information.  (Note: Describes a response to the counterargument, a justification of today's trend toward Black.)  Ultimately, Eligon points to personal intuition as an aid to individuals in the Black community grappling with these questions. He describes the experience of sociologist Crystal M. Fleming, whose use of lowercase “black” transformed to capitalized “Black” over the course of her career and years of research. Her transition from black to Black is, she says, as much a matter of personal choice as a reasoned conclusion—suggesting that it will be up to Black journalists and academics to determine the conventions of the future. (Note: This last sentence of this summary paragraph focuses on Eligon's conclusion, his implied argument about what should guide the choice of terms.

COVID-19 is not the first outbreak in history and probably won’t be the last one. (Note: The opening statement provides the essay's overall context: the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.) However, its effects will be long-lasting. While the pandemic has affected everyone’s lives in every aspect, its impacts on women are even more severe. (Note: The followup statement introduces the essay's particular focus: the impact of the pandemic on women.) Helen Lewis, the author of the Atlantic Magazine article “The Coronavirus Is a Disaster for Feminism,” explains why the pandemic threatens feminism. (Note: Early on, the summary names the author, title, and magazine that published the argument summarized.) Lewis starts her article with a complaint by saying “enough already” because, in terms of housework especially for child care, there has been an inequality since the past. This inequality has become even more explicit with the coronavirus outbreak. Women have to shoulder not only more housework but also childcare more than ever due to school closures. The pandemic started as a public health crisis and brought along an economic one. Lewis argues that the crisis affects women more than men because women are more likely to assume housework and childcare responsibilities while men are expected to work and “bring home the bacon.” (Note: The author provides a thesis at the end of the introduction with a clear overview of the main claim of the argument summarized.)

In "Spread Feminism, Not Germs," student Gizem Gur summarizes the Atlantic Magazine article "The Coronavirus Is a Disaster for Feminism." Annotations point out the structure of the summary and the strategies Gur uses. Sample summary "Spread Feminism, Not Germs" in PDF with margin notes     Sample summary "Spread Feminism, Not Germs" accessible version with notes in parentheses     In "Typography and Identity," Saramanda Swigart summarizes the New York Times article “A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ or ‘black’?” Annotations point out the structure of the summary and the strategies Swigart uses. Sample summary "Typography and Identity" in PDF with margin notes  Sample summary "Typography and Identity" accessible version with notes in parentheses

The article might describe a number of different kinds of products people can buy with BitCoin and tell stories of individuals who used BitCoin for different purposes or invested in BitCoin and made a profit. Depending on how long our summary is supposed to be, we can represent those parts of the argument in more or less detail. If we need to summarize the article in a sentence, we might simply refer to all of this supporting evidence with a couple of words like "variety" and "profit."

In her 2019 article “Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border?”, Anna Mills urges readers to seek a new border policy that helps desperate undocumented migrants rather than criminalizing them. She calls for a shift toward respect and empathy, questioning the very idea that crossing illegally is wrong. Mills argues that any parent in a desperate position would consider it right to cross for their child’s sake; therefore, no person should condemn that action in another. Since we cannot justify our current walls and detention centers, we must get rid of them. She acknowledges that opening the borders completely would compromise security, but believes that we can still “regulate” our borders without blocking or imprisoning migrants.

In the case of the border argument, the writer responds to the counterargument about security by clarifying that she does not advocate completely open borders. The sample summary already refers to this when it describes her desire to “regulate” those borders. In addition, when it paraphrases her claims and reasons, it uses the phrases “desperate” and “in a desperate position” to limit the focus to migrants who are fleeing an awful situation.

Note the choice here to quote the one word “regulate” instead of paraphrasing or using the word without quotation marks. The quotation marks draw attention to the author's original word choice and suggest there may be a problem or question about this word choice. In this case, the summary might observe that the writer does not specify what kind of regulation she means.

Mills acknowledges that opening the borders completely would compromise security, but she believes that we can “regulate” our borders without blocking or imprisoning migrants.

Our border argument map shows a chain of three reasons leading to the main claim, so our summary can describe that chain.

In her 2019 article “Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border?”, Anna Mills urges us to seek a new border policy that helps desperate undocumented migrants rather than criminalizing them. She calls for a shift toward respect and empathy, questioning the very idea that crossing illegally is wrong. She argues that any parent in a desperate position would consider it right to cross for their child’s sake; therefore, no person should condemn that action in another. Since we cannot justify our current walls and detention centers, we must get rid of them.

Elaborating on the Main Claim Depending on the length of the summary we are writing, we may add in additional sentences to further clarify the argument’s main claim. In the border argument example, the summary we have thus far focuses on the idea of helping migrants, but the argument itself has another, related dimension which focuses on the attitudes we should take toward migrants. If we are asked to write only a very short summary, we might leave the explanation of the main claim as it is. If we have a little more leeway, we might add to it to reflect this nuance thus: In her 2019 article “Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border?”, Anna Mills urges us to seek a new border policy that helps desperate undocumented migrants rather than criminalizing them. She calls for a shift away from blame toward respect and empathy, questioning the very idea that crossing illegally is wrong. Of course, the border argument is short, and we have given an even briefer summary of it. College courses will also ask us to summarize longer, multi-part arguments or even a whole book. In that case, we will need to summarize each sub-section of the argument as its own claim.

If, as in the case of our sample argument, the author wants to push for some kind of action, then we can signal to the reader how sure the writer seems of the recommendation and how much urgency they feel. Since the border argument uses words like “must” and “justice” in its final paragraph, we will want to convey that sense of moral conviction if we can, with a verb like “urges.” Here is one possible first sentence of a summary of that argument: In her 2019 article “Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border?”, Anna Mills urges us to seek a new border policy that helps desperate migrants rather than criminalizing them. If we think there should be even more sense of urgency, we might choose the verb “demands.” “Demands” would make Mills seem more insistent, possibly pushy. Is she that insistent? We will want to glance back at the original, probably many times, to double-check that our word choice fits. If the border argument ended with a more restrained tone, as if to convey politeness and humility or even uncertainty, we might summarize it with a sentence like the following: In her 2019 article 'Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border?', Anna Mills asks us to consider how we can change border policy to help desperate undocumented migrants rather than criminalizing them.

If the argument’s main purpose is to convince us that something is bad or good or of mixed value, we can signal that evaluation to the reader right off the bat. How dramatic is the claim about its praise or critique? We can ask ourselves how many stars the argument is giving the thing it evaluates. A five-star rating “celebrates” or “applauds” its subject while a four-star rating might be said to “endorse it with some reservations.”

If the argument’s main purpose is to describe reality in some way, we will want to let readers know if it is controversial or not. Is the writer defending their idea against obvious objections or counterarguments, or are they aiming to inform us about something we may not be aware of?

Claims

Limits the group of immigrants we are talking about to those who are desperate. This is an argument about refugees of one kind or another, not about people who just feel they would be happier or more successful in the U.S. So maybe the author would still consider it fine to criminalize those who cross illegally because they prefer to live in the U.S. if they are not currently in dire straits.

In the border argument example, the writer concedes that the counterargument does have merit: "I admit that completely open borders would put our security at risk." Immediately, the writer responds, "But surely there are ways to regulate the border without criminalizing people who are driven by need and good intentions." The word “but” signals the transition from concession back to the writer's own side. In the map, we can put the rebuttal below the counterargument and use the arrow to show it supporting the main claim.

In the border argument example, the writer never directly mentions other writers who disagree. Instead, they signal with the phrase “I admit” that they are going to summarize a valid point which goes against their own main argument: "I admit that completely open borders would put our security at risk." We could add this to our map as follows, with the counterargument in red to show it goes against the rest of the argument:

“If most of us, under desperate circumstances, would cross the border without permission and feel no moral qualms about doing so, then we must recognize this crossing as an ethical, reasonable act.”

In the last paragraph, we learn what these ways might involve. Three different claims of policy emerge: “... We must recognize this crossing as an ethical, reasonable act.” "How can either a wall or a detention center be on the side of justice?" (The implication, of course, is that they cannot be.) “ We must find a policy that treats migrants as we would want to be treated--with empathy, respect, and offers of help.”

If I were raising children in an impoverished third-world community plagued by violence, and if I had a chance to get my family to the U.S., I would take it. I would try to cross a border illegally so my children would get enough to eat and would have a more stable childhood and a chance at a better education and a better career. What parent would sit on their hands and tell themself, “I want to give my child a better life, but oh well. If I don’t have the papers, I guess it would be wrong”?

It is easier to grow up biracial in Hawaii than in any other part of the United States.

An argument is a swarming cluster of words.