The section on “culture wars” shows how the word “war” doesn’t just describe conflict — it produces it. Jeffords connects the term to debates over education, art, and politics, which reminds me of how the “celebrity” essay explored power structures and social influence. What inspires me here is the method: Jeffords uses history, politics, and examples from public controversies to show how a keyword reflects deeper tensions in American culture. For my research project, I can follow this model by showing how my own keyword shapes debates, identities, or values today.

Jeffords shows how the meaning of “war” expands in the 20th century to describe social problems — the “war on poverty,” “war on drugs,” and “war on terror.” This reminds me of the “celebrity” essay because both authors explore how language shapes public attitudes. By calling these issues “wars,” politicians create urgency, fear, and conflict even when the situation is not military at all. This metaphorical framing is something I want to use in my own research: analyzing not just what a word means, but what it does in society.

Jeffords’s opening reminds me of last week’s “celebrity” essay because both authors start by showing how a single word appears constantly in everyday life. Just like “celebrity” was more complicated than it first seemed, “war” also carries multiple meanings beyond literal combat. I like how Jeffords uses examples from sports, politics, and media to show how the term shapes how Americans think about conflict. This approach gives me ideas for my own keyword project — especially the strategy of starting with common uses before digging into deeper cultural meanings.

This section clarifies something many students, including me, often misunderstand: the difference between primary and secondary sources depends on how the source is used. I found the example about news articles especially helpful. A news article can function as a secondary source when it reports or interprets events, but it becomes a primary source if we use it as raw data for patterns or frequency. This made me realize that choosing sources is not just about finding information, but about understanding the purpose each source serves in our research.

The explanation of a scholarly article’s structure (abstract, introduction, literature review, methods, results, conclusion) gave me a practical strategy for reading academic work. Before, I used to feel overwhelmed and tried to read everything from top to bottom. Now I understand that I can use the abstract to check relevance quickly and focus on the introduction and conclusion to understand the main argument. I don’t need to understand every technical detail. This approach makes academic sources feel much more manageable and less intimidating.

because it explains why professors strongly prefer peer-reviewed (Tier 1) sources. These sources are evaluated by experts and therefore provide the strongest and most credible evidence. I like how the chapter also acknowledges that Tier 4 sources, including Wikipedia, still have a role in the early research process—mainly for generating keywords or identifying important names and topics. This helps me understand that good research doesn’t mean avoiding Google entirely, but knowing how to move from lower-tier sources to higher-quality academic ones.

Many keywords are hard to use because they can mean several things at the same time. If people use different senses without realizing it, conversations can become confusing or lead to misunderstanding.

This shows how the history of a word affects how we use and understand it today. Old meanings can stay, fade, or be replaced, which makes communication harder if people don’t realize those older layers still influence the word.

This definition helps me understand that a “keyword” is not just any vocabulary word. It is a word used a lot in society and can have multiple overlapping or even conflicting meanings. This complexity is why keywords require deeper analysis.

I like how this opening starts immediately with substance and a specific idea. It makes the reader curious and shows how a strong introduction can begin with a meaningful concept rather than general background.

I agree that a conclusion should not just restate the thesis but also explain why the argument matters. This makes the essay feel complete and shows deeper thinking.

This sentence changes how I think about introductions. In high school I was told to start general and narrow down, but now I see that college writing means giving readers context, not vague filler.