The audience is assumed to have basic foundational knowledge of Korean history, politics, and culture. However, the topic also requires a large amount of cybersecurity jargon, so these words and concepts are explained in detail.
Be mindful about your uses of passive voice. It tends to undermine clarity in your writing.
intended for
Do you mean you were instructed to write as if the paper would be presented, or did you actually present it?
I joined a call
Not sure what you mean
.
I'm sure you're not alone
the amount of effort I expended while writing refused to correlate with the resulting grade.
Quality and effort don't always align, especially when it comes to writing!
I would recommend easing up on your use of semicolons.
Maybe more carefully consider your phrasing choices:
--the effort I expended failed to result in a satisfactory grade OR --the grades I received failed to correlate with the effort I expended
I
Discuss coherence: fear of getting things wrong; obsession with getting As; linked to self-esteem
Sentence ideas don't neatly line up
;
Maybe drop the semicolon.
The results tend to hit more personally than other classes, as I subconsciously treat my writing as a representation of my intelligence, personality, and likeability.
The results tend to hit more personally than they do in other classes, as I consider my writing a representation of my intelligence, personality, and likeability.
focus on how experiences in your lifehave impacted your beliefs, opinions, and ambitions
Whether you wish to identify a single event, several events, or like Twain, apply concepts like circumstance and temperament to a series of events, you'll inevitably reflect on beliefs, opinions, and ambitions.
one in on a few specific aspects?
Honing in on a handful of moments, episodes, etc., would be fine. I would avoiding chronicling your life story.
Keep in mind that you are writing this reflection in the context of a particular academicdiscipline. If you cannot relate a certain detail to the subject at hand, it is probably best toleave it out.
See my first note above.
particular course or academic subject
We're looking at the question of relevance in a slightly different way given our broader objective to write for a popular publication read by a general audience. Replace "a particular course or academic subject" with "the publication in which you imagine your piece appearing." For instance, if you image your piece appearing in a publication like Vox, which declares its commitment to "never ... [losing] sight of the fact that major events impact real people’s lives," you want to emphasis the parts of your narrative that "real people" can relate to. That would likely mean more real-world, experience-oriented examples and much less jardon or theory.
He expects that to come from advances in animal-less meat technology, and from the growing problems with production of food from animals.
More summary of Reese's argument. Here, Reiderer shows that while Reese makes arguments re: attitudes about meat consumption, ultimately he's more interested in the maintainability of current methods of meat production--the meat industry, and animals generally, are "inefficient producers of flesh."
Sagor thought
Here, not only does Scutts show readers how Longworth begins her book, she shows how Longworth initiates a conversation about the role women's views about other women play in our perceptions of men's actions.
I was hoping to find in Reese’s book.
Reiderer concedes that she didn't find what she was looking for in Reese's book.
Reading Reese’s book, I found myself thinking of Matthew Scully’s Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, published in 2002.
It's never a good sign when a reviewer recommends another, better book!
Reese also rejects measures intended to make eating animals a little less morally objectionable. Michael Pollan
Here Reiderer describes how Reese distances himself from nutrition advocates like Michael Pollan. He may single out Polan because of his stance on lab-grown or created foods generally (he objects to them in favor of real foods.)
the constant emphasis on efficiency runs a little cold
Reiderer suggests that Reese's dispassionate, highly clinical approach to his topic is unlikely to inspire readers.
Reese’s book isn’t likely to win the hearts and palates of many meat eaters. Its tone is coolly dry, bordering on mathematical.
Here we see Reiderer begin to lean in to her critique of Reese's book.
How much more “unnatural” is it to eat a chicken breast grown in a lab than it is to eat one that came from a live bird that was bred to have such outsize chest musculature that it could barely stand without tipping over?
Here Reiderer paraphrases Reese's claim that eating lab-grown meat isn't any more "unnatural" than eating animal-based meat.
Reese swiftly and easily dispenses with the idea that eating meat is “necessary” for health, pointing out that vegans and vegetarians are often healthier than their meat-eating counterparts, and that vegan athletes and bodybuilders have no trouble getting protein or gaining strength.
Praise of Reese's treatment of this counterargument (that eating meat is "necessary" for good health).
Those high-profile actresses—silent star Billie Dove, Jean Harlow, Ava Gardner, Ginger Rogers, Ingrid Bergman, Jane Russell, and many others—managed to carve out a modicum of power for themselves in a ruthless business largely through their romantic relationships. A powerful man, a director or producer or costar, could become a husband or a lover, and serve as a protector.
Sums up power dynamics of 30s and 40s Hollywood.
Longworth’s book shows that power in Hollywood depends on who’s in charge of the story
Underscores one of the book's main arguments.
roommate.
Scutts provides an example of a high-profile relationship portrayed in Longworth's book.
“No director of the era,” Longworth writes, “worked as hard to diminish the public perception of their own power
Discussion of Ida Lupino helps contextualize the era the book covers. To assume power, women had to downplay it.
.
Scutts situates Longworth's book very much in relation to Scorsese's film, which she probably assumes informs most people's view of Hughes. She also subtly begins to tie the book to the #MeToo movement.
If modern readers know much of Hughes’s story, it is likely through Martin Scorsese’s visually inventive and emotionally shallow 2004 biopic The Aviator.
Here, Scutts's introduces an outside source, Scorsese's film about Hughes's, as an example of the contemporary public's exposure to him.
.
Third paragraph concludes Scutts's brief overview of Hughes's life.
director.
2nd paragraph jumps directly to summary of early Hughes's biography (presumably extracted from Scutts's book); depicts him as ruthless from an early age.
Her new book, Seduction, offers an insistent, clear-eyed reminder of the fact that history does not get buried or forgotten by accident, but by design, in order to burnish and elevate the reputations of powerful men, and to cut women down to size
This sentence gives us a good sense of where this review is going. With words like clear-eyed and incisive, it seems likely to be a positive review.
We also learn Scutts's understanding of the book's objective: to cast in bold relief the way history burnishes the reputations of men at the expense of women.
It’s important, Reese writes, to challenge the assumption that meat is “normal,” because many consumers may be wary of straying from the status quo
This paragraph summarizes one of Reese's major points.
conservative publication Quillette last December
The first hint we get of the political lens through which Reese views his advocacy (center right).
.
After a criticism, this paragraph concedes that the issue Reese raises is important.
the business-friendly techno-utopian optimist.
Center-right, business-friendly animal rights advocacy. It's becoming clear that the reviewer is highly skeptical of Reese's high opinion of entrepreneurs as solvers of ethical problems.
.”
This paragraph gives a brief overview of Reese's background, and describes how he has gone about establishing his animal rights bona fides. There's just a hint of sarcasm that comes through primarily in the sentence about Reese's pet chickens.
Reese, an animal rights advocate from rural Texas, now lives in Brooklyn with his fiancée, their dog, and two rescue hens. (The hens, saved from factory farms, are medicated with something analogous to birth-control so that they won’t lay eggs, which, Reese says, lets them live longer and happier lives.)
These details, as well as Scutter's tone, constitute the first hint we get that this may not be an all together favorable review.
It is a political choice to argue for a policy that includes some factors (consumer prices) and excludes others (size, influence, political power). Just as it is a political choice to put a thumb on the scale in favor of mergers, against enforcement, and for consolidation. And it is a political choice to believe in monopolists when they claim they are simply trying to make the world a better place.
Stressing Wu's thesis, anti-trust seeks to address the danger consolidated economic power poses to democracy.
exceptional because the courts
The review's one criticism: that Wu omits the role of the courts from his analysis.
The neo-Brandeisians
Louis Brandies (November 13, 1856 – October 5, 1941): staunchly anti-trust supreme court justice.
.
This passage summarizes Wu's central position; namely, that a narrow understanding of anti-trust is wrong. Anti-trust, Wu argues, has always "included preserving conditions for democracy."
This paragraph clearly puts Wu at odds with Bork, the Chicago School, etc.
The Curse of Bigness is neither an academic book nor a policy brief, so his prescriptions are more a sketch of an agenda than a blueprint for reform. But they include most of the main components that must accompany an antitrust revival: reforms to merger policy, more big prosecutions, breakups of existing conglomerates, industrywide investigations, and a rethinking of the consumer welfare standard.
Gives a sense of what the book is and isn't. And provides a helpful way of thinking about its argument/approach.
Also, this paragraph helps open up the book's potential readership. It's "neither an academic book nor a policy brief."
When economic power is concentrated, it destroys not only economic freedom but also political freedom, as the wealthy and powerful use their resources to capture the government and rig it in their favor.
Notice how the first three paragraphs work: P1 establishes conglomerate dominance, P2 shows that economic thinking of the 1970s played a huge role in setting the playing field for the rise of conglomerates, and P3 shows how more recent thinking has emerged by way of the neo-Brandeisians.
decline in competition is so plain that even centrist organizations like The Economist and the Brookings Institution have called for a reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement
This goes to Sitaraman's efforts to situate Wu's book. We're living in a moment of conglomerate dominance-- monopolies are everywhere.
The aggressive competition laws of today’s European Union thus have the New Dealers as one of their ancestors. Democratizing Europe required democratizing the economy in Europe
P9 and 10 show how monopolies were linked to authoritarianism, and that New Dealers had a role in shaping post-war European views on Anti-Trust.
unlikely that such a dispassionate approach will be enough to spark the major changes in eating habits and foodways that could bring about a slaughterless future
The book's major failing is its dispassionate approach. Note how Riederer directs readers to another, better book on the same subject.
terrified cows.
Another concession.
.
First concrete criticism: the book's tone is too cold and mathematical to appeal to an audience.
advice on marketing them
Marketing--persuading people to eat meatless meat or lab-grown meat.
a.
A brief overview of tissue culturing, presumably drawn from Reese's book.
”
This paragraph shows how Reese's advocacy fits into the larger context of meatless tech as a response to concerns about meat production.
no animals harmed in the making
The end of this paragraph succinctly sums up Reese's argument: the future of meat production will not involve harming animals.
without necessarily meaning the end of meat
This sentence ties the opening anecdote to the argument of Reese's book.
.
Note how review begins with an anecdote re: lab-grown meat, rather than soy-based meatless meat.
get the better of the major objection to your argument by raising and answering it in advance
We've talked about the importance of anticipating objections when writing all three of our previous assignments. WP2-B is no exception. Addressing likely objections helps you rhetorically, as it shows you're paying attention to what others say, not just to what you happen to think.
An op-ed contributor is a specialist who seeks only to inform them
I would prefer the word "persuade" to "inform." When informing readers, one doesn't necessarily have to make an argument. But op-eds are all about argument. So, aim to do more than inform. Persuade your readers to accept your argument.
doing
This! Please avoid turning your op-ed into a rant. Be civil, and give credit where it's due. Pointing out how stupid you think other people are isn't exactly a surefire way to cultivate credibility.