of 2View as TextDownload Automatic Zoom Actual Size Page Fit Page Width 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 200% 300% 400% Essay 1: Summarizing a ConversationPurpose: Your purpose for this essay is to summarize three voices in a conversation, specifically, Malik(“The Myth of Free Speech”), Pollitt (“The Left Needs Free Speech), and Wu (“The FirstAmendment is Out of Control”). Each of these three authors is making an argument about theproblems Americans (and some other controls) are having with free speech. Your job is tosummarize that conversation for your readers with three summaries that are comprehensive,accurate, brief, independent, and neutral. You will maintain neutrality in this essay; that is, you will fairly and accurately represent eachposition so that the author of each position can recognize their argument in your summary. Wewon’t know how you feel about the opinions you summarize. You will use ID tags and signal verbs in virtually every sentence of your summaries. You will rely on paraphrasing, primarily. Although, you may use word-for-word quotationssparingly, if at all. Keep in mind that a summary is putting another’s words into your own words.If you overuse quotations, you aren’t summarizing. The goal for this essay is to help you master summary skills, become familiar with thecomplexities of a controversy, as well as gain practice listening to and accurately representingwhat others say in a complex debate.Audience: Your audience for this essay will be concerned, interested, yet uninformed citizens who arelooking to you to provide an unbiased, accurate representation of the voices in this debate.Format: Format your essay in MLA styleStructure:First paragraph:o You need to begin in a way that introduces your readers to the conversation. You don’twant to begin with the first summary. Instead, you want to briefly introduce the issueand the three voices that are taking part in the conversation.o Explain for your readers the basics of this controversation, and offer a sense of why thisconversation is important.o For example, you may want to begin by telling your audience who this controversyaffects, how the outcome of the controversy may affect them, and why this controversyis important—answer the questions “Who cares?” and “So what?”o To briefly introduce the varying positions within the conversation, give readers a verybrief glimpse into what each of the authors says. This will help you briefly introduce thedebate for your readers before you dive into the summaries. Here’s one way to do that: In response to the question “How does technology affect our thinking and ourconnection to others?” Nicholas Brody, Nicholas Carr, Sherry Turkle, and AgustinFuentes agree that technology impacts us in significant ways, positively andnegatively. Brody argues that smartphones ______. In contrast, Carr contendsthat smartphones ______. Sherry Turkle agrees with much of Carr’s position, butshe adds that ______. Agustin Fuentes, on the other hand, focuses on ______and argues that ______.Body paragraphs:o This is where you will compose a CABIN (comprehensive, accurate, brief, independent,and neutral) summary of each article, one after the other. You can use the summariesyou’ve already written for Malik, Pollitt, and Wu.o Use one paragraph per summary, for this essay.o Make sure you use ID Tags throughout, carefully selecting the most accurate signalverbs for what the authors are doing.o Use transitions to capture the flow of the authors’ ideas.o After the first summary, you will need to transition to the 2nd summary and at times, aspart of the 2nd summary, mention how the 2nd author’s ideas compare or contrast withthe 1st author’s ideas. You can do this simply by saying, “Where Malik argues X, Pollittargues Y” and so on. You can find a number of helpful templates in the “Index ofTemplates” link in the Essay 1 Assignment Sheet folder.o Then do the same with the 2nd and 3rd summaries.Concluding paragraph:o There is no need for a concluding paragraph since you are not drawing any conclusionsand your introduction will say all you need to say about the significance of the issue.
