Research Paper 2 adds a few elements to your research project. The three significant but not the only elements include: a historical dimension (A4), a section that describes “the debate” (from Project 1, but perhaps briefer and tailored for Project 2), and, thirdly, an argument section, which is a full rendering of your position and approach that you played with in A5. This section should be a principle focus of Project 2.
1. Historical Dimension (in the narratio)
2. The Debate (summarized version of Project 1, in the narratio)
3. Your application of the argument framework, necessary refutation, and concessions or limitations (see Chapter 6.1 for potential structural assistance).
The three principle areas of development in this paper require you to apply all the course abilities. I’m especially looking at your ability to analyze and evaluate sources, use evidence and appeals effectively, refine your ability to use written communication techniques, and apply the persuasive/argument framework with intention and purpose. You’ll still need an introduction and a conclusion.
Sources: 6 min
Length: 2000 word min
Submission: Submit Project 2 with a revised copy of Project 1, your best analysis paper, and the portfolio cover letter on the date indicated on the Course Calendar. Directions for the Portfolio Cover Letter.
Here’s a sample outline:
Lots of people are talking about 3-D printing. 3-D printing is printing goods, even food products, like linguini, using powders or resins or other materials. But there is also controversy and a debate. Author B argues that 3-D printing will hurt the economy. Author A talks about the potential for terrorists to use 3-D for gun manufacture. Author C and B provide evidence that 3-D will totally change how goods and services are done in the US.
How did this innovation arise? It’s not like there haven’t been disruptions to manufacturing before. Even the computer changed how people make and buy stuff. Author E and author F provide interesting tales about this.
Thesis: 3-D Printing will revolutionize how consumers acquire products, promote and provoke creative innovation, and disrupt traditional manufacturing.
Arg 1: Change how consumers acquire products
Evidence comes from Author A, counter args from Author C, Author G.
Here’s a useful appeal, given the argument: isn’t freedom of choice good in this regard?
Arg 2: Promote and provoke creative innovation
Author H provides lots of evidence in support of this. Author C disagrees but is wrong.
Here’s a useful appeal, given the argument: creativity is definitely a value to be promoted, right?
Arg 3: Disrupt traditional manufacturing
Author H, F, and B involved here with a tad bit of evidence for each
Here’s a useful appeal, given the argument: People are at the thrall of traditional industry; isn’t promoting the value of people making themselves a good thing?
The Conclusion or Peroration