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.

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."

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.

This goes to Sitaraman's efforts to situate Wu's book. We're living in a moment of conglomerate dominance-- monopolies are everywhere.

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.

The book's major failing is its dispassionate approach. Note how Riederer directs readers to another, better book on the same subject.

Another concession.

First concrete criticism: the book's tone is too cold and mathematical to appeal to an audience.

Marketing--persuading people to eat meatless meat or lab-grown meat.

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.

The end of this paragraph succinctly sums up Reese's argument: the future of meat production will not involve harming animals.

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.

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.

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.

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.