Project 2 Outline

In this blog post I outlined the basic structure of my essay, with help from the tips from "Writing Public Lives" (pgs. 122-125). Just as the tips suggested, I have a working introduction with a thesis, 3 body paragraphs each with analytical claims and support, and finally a summarizing conclusion. I found the tips of providing background information and framing your issue in the introduction helpful, as I otherwise wasn't sure how to go about the intro. I also found the tips about making an analytical claim that is debatable but also supportable helpful in understanding just what an analytical claim was.

Escamilla, Alejandro, "Left-Handed Writing with Wristwatch"  5/19/13 via Wikipedia Commons, CC0 Public Domain

Introduction: Provide:

• background information about Neuroscience and the argument
• an introduction into how an argument is constructed in the field 
• my thesis
• a closing statement that describes what my essay's purpose is

Thesis: Dr. Larry Cahill's 2014 article "Equal =/= The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain", Cahill employs strategies such as personal stories and expertise, as well as a dramatic tone implying annoyance with the current situation to convince the reader through an appeal to both emotion and credibility of his argument. Cahill also includes use of historical and relevant evidence and statistics to provide context for the reader, helping him gain credibility and therefore agreeability even more.

Body 1:

Topic Sentence: Cahill gains credibility through his expertise

• Analytical Claim: expertise adds credibility

1. Evidence: Cahill mentions his title/research done aka his expertise
2. Evidence: Also mentions his colleagues that are experts, and their opinions, making him believable

• Analytical Claim: credibility adds agreeability

1. Evidence: Uses his expertise as an argument
2. Evidence: introduction to credibility eases into the argument

Body 2:

Topic Sentence: Cahill includes statistics, evidence, and context to further convince his audience of credibility and believability

• Analytical Claim: Logos (facts/stats) actually create ethos in this case

1. Evidence: context in beginning adds background info
2. Evidence: statistics and graph make the argument more believable

• Analytical Claim: facts and credibility are important to convince readers in neuroscience since it is such a factual field

1. Evidence: context in beginning and studies throughout appeal to the academic audience
2. Evidence: science=knowledge, without facts, the argument would be too loaded/emotional

Body 3:

Topic Sentence: Cahill appeals to emotion through loaded words, personal stories, and dramatic tone.

• Analytical Claim: Cahill's dramatization appeals to emotion

1. Evidence: claims he could've lost his career
2. Evidence: makes claims about backlash

• Analytical Claim: By appealing to emotion Cahill grabs his readers attention and forms a bond that makes the reader want to listen and agree.

1. Evidence: uses tone to seem more close to the audience
2. Evidence: uses sob stories as a "cry for help" sort of argument

Conclusion:

• restate thesis in new way
• add last insight into argument in my field

Reflection: Upon reading and reflecting on both Sam and Ann Emilie's outlines, I realized that my outline is on the right track. I was a little unsure of its brevity before reflecting on others, but I actually like outlines that are on the short side, because they seem more summarized, well-organized, and clear. I hope I can transfer this outline into my actual essay in a way that thickens it and simultaneously still makes sense.