9-24-15

•Review summary & analysis

•Understand comparison through practice

•Understand assignment for Paper 3

Goals:

Summarize, analyze, compare

Summary:• 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?)

Analysis:

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?

How are these sentences alike? How are they different?

Let’s eat Grandma!Let’s eat, Grandma!

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.

Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree.

How are these poems alike? How are they different?

Vertical by Linda Pastan

Perhaps the purpose of leaves is to concealthe verticality of trees which we notice in December as if for the first time: row after row of dark formsyearning upwards. And since we will be horizontalourselves for so long, let us now honorthe gods of the vertical: stalks of wheat whichto 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 againstwhich I lean my chilled head, not ready to lie down.

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 Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear”; discuss in class10/1 Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Does Monsanto Sue Farmers”; discuss in class 10/6 Bring bullet-point list of similarities and differences between Monsanto articles10/8 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 Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear”; discuss in class10/1 Bring one-page summary/analysis of “Does Monsanto Sue Farmers”; discuss in class 10/6 Bring bullet-point list of similarities and differences between Monsanto articles10/8 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.