Bhandari1 Sabin Bhandari Professor Lindsey Barlow ENGL-1302-32011 02/17/2021 Global Warming and Climate Change Introduction In this article, I am going to focus on a comparison of two articles: "atopic overview titled ‘the global warming and climate change’ from Gale opposing viewpoint online collection publishers.” And “a viewpoint essay titled ‘climate change must be addressed in developed countries’ authored by Curtis Doebbler and published by adaptation and climate change publisher. SUGGESTED INTRO :Comment by Dodson, Dianna: You do not quote general information. If you quote specific information from the source, use quotation marks. Standard formal writing also is usually written in third person (he, they, it, the paper). First person (I, we, us,) is only used when the paper is personal: My Earliest Memory, My Reader Response, etc. SENTENCE 1: Begin by defining/introducing the topic of the paper: climate change. SENTENCE 2: The article “Global Warming and Climate Change” by FIRST NAME Gale and “Climate Change Must Be Addressed in Developed Countries” by Curtis Doebbler are about climate change, but the Doebbler article provides more effective rthetorical ideas compared the article by Gale. In my opinion, the article authored by Curtis provides more rhetorical effective ideas compared to the article published by Gale. Curtis's article suggests that most of the developed countries, especially in the United States, play a big role in contributing to global warming and climate change, yet they refuse to implement strategies that assist in reducing this issue. On the other hand, Gales's article suggests that the current changes in climate and global warming are due to the natural cycles that have repeatedly occurred over the course of earth's history. Curtis's article is more focused on the scientific facts that cause global warming and climate changes, while Gale's article is more focused on the theoretical causes of global warming and climate change. Title The articles are titled 'global warming and climate change,' and 'climate change must be addressed in developed countries.' Both articles are well written with the strong support of the thesis statements through well-established explanations and examples in both articles. The article titled ‘ “cClimate cChange mMust bBe aAddressed in dDeveloped cCountries” ' has been written in such a way that it has focuses d on the United States to represent the developed countries, which makes the article title have a strong base and makes it outstanding. The other article, has been titled ' “Global wWarming and Climate cChange,' which is a short and outstanding title that and makes the reader want to find out what is being discussed regarding global warming and climate change. Both titles have well represented the articles since they are catchy, . In my opinion, t but the article titled 'Climate Change must be addressed in developed countries ha ...

1. Bhandari1
Sabin Bhandari
Professor Lindsey Barlow
ENGL-1302-32011
02/17/2021
Global Warming and Climate
Change
Introduction
In this article, I am going to focus on a comparison of two
articles: "atopic overview titled ‘the global warming and
climate change’ from Gale opposing viewpoint online collection
publishers.” And “a viewpoint essay titled ‘climate change must
be addressed in developed countries’ authored by Curtis
Doebbler and published by adaptation and climate change
publisher. SUGGESTED INTRO :Comment by Dodson, Dianna:
You do not quote general information. If you quote specific
information from the source, use quotation marks.
Standard formal writing also is usually written in third person
(he, they, it, the paper). First person (I, we, us,) is only used
when the paper is personal: My Earliest Memory, My Reader
Response, etc.
SENTENCE 1: Begin by defining/introducing the topic of the
paper: climate change. SENTENCE 2: The article “Global
Warming and Climate Change” by FIRST NAME Gale and
“Climate Change Must Be Addressed in Developed Countries”
by Curtis Doebbler are about climate change, but the Doebbler
article provides more effective rthetorical ideas compared the
article by Gale. In my opinion, the article authored by Curtis
provides more rhetorical effective ideas compared to the article
published by Gale. Curtis's article suggests that most of the
developed countries, especially in the United States, play a big

2. role in contributing to global warming and climate change, yet
they refuse to implement strategies that assist in reducing this
issue. On the other hand, Gales's article suggests that the
current changes in climate and global warming are due to the
natural cycles that have repeatedly occurred over the course of
earth's history. Curtis's article is more focused on the scientific
facts that cause global warming and climate changes, while
Gale's article is more focused on the theoretical causes of global
warming and climate change.
Title
The articles are titled 'global warming and climate change,' and
'climate change must be addressed in developed countries.'
Both articles are well written with the strong support of the
thesis statements through well-established explanations and
examples in both articles. The article titled ‘ “cClimate cChange
mMust bBe aAddressed in dDeveloped cCountries” ' has been
written in such a way that it has focuses d on the United States
to represent the developed countries, which makes the article
title have a strong base and makes it outstanding. The other
article, has been titled ' “Global wWarming and Climate
cChange,' which is a short and outstanding title that and makes
the reader want to find out what is being discussed regarding
global warming and climate change. Both titles have well
represented the articles since they are catchy, . In my opinion, t
but the article titled 'Climate Change must be addressed in
developed countries has a better title than the other article. This
is because it makes the reader curious about find what the
developed countries are not doing to deal with the issue of
climate change and global warming. The article titled(((
'Climate change must be addressed in developed countries' is
strong since it makes the audience find out why the developed
countries are not aware of climate change and global
warming.))) The article titled ‘global warming and climate
change’ is strong since it is simple and makes the audience want
to find out what is being discussed regarding global warming
and climate change. Comment by Dodson, Dianna: …makes

3. WHAT outstanding? Not clearComment by Dodson, Dianna:
fixComment by Dodson, Dianna: fixComment by Dodson,
Dianna: (((repeated information. Delete.)))Comment by Dodson,
Dianna: fix
Claim
Gale, the author of the article titled 'Global warming and
Climate change,' claims that the ‘current climate changes and
global warming are as a result of natural cycles that have
repeatedly occurred in the course of earth's history . This article
suggests that changes in climate are caused by natural processes
on earth that regularly create and destroy atmospheric gases,
which bring about the greenhouse effect. Curtis's article titled
'Climate change must be addressed in developed countries'
claims that using through scientific facts , the that climate
changes and global warming are caused and accelerated by the
increased use of carbon-rich fossil fuels , which increase the
emission of carbon, a gas that heats the earth when trapped in
the atmosphere. Both claims are strong since they have been
supported with evidence that explains more about the claim and
shows the claim's main ideas. For Gale's article, it would have
been more fitting if it had likewise focused on the emission of
carbon as the main cause of climate change and global warming
rather than focusing on the theory of natural processes. Curtis's
article has a better claim since it suggests that global warming
and climate change are caused by human activities that lead to
carbon emission, which heats the atmosphere when trapped in
the earth. The article has also focused on why climate change
has to be addressed in developed countries. Comment by
Dodson, Dianna: fixComment by Dodson, Dianna: fix
Opposition
The article by Curtis suggests that ((('The United States been
the leader developed countries hinder action and measures from
fighting and responding to climate and global warming changes
that are brought about by the excess emission of carbon due to
human activities polluting the poor states leading to increas ed
greenhouse gases.))) Gale’s article disagrees with the claims of

4. Curtis’s article since it suggests that the earth's atmosphere is
composed of various gases that trap heat radiations from the sun
and the current changes in climate and global warming is due to
natural processes that occur through the natural cycles that and
have repeatedly occurred in earth's history. Natural processes
include the decay of animal and plant matters , which leads to
the emission of carbon dioxide , and this has contributes d to a
significant increase in the percentage of carbon in the
atmosphere. Both articles' opposition is fair since the authors
have ensured that they present their claims thoroughly with
appropriate support. The authors have also ensure d that their
articles bring out the main idea that was is intended for the
article rather than contradicting each what the other article has
focuses d on. Comment by Dodson, Dianna: This sentence does
not make sense. Missing words?
Common ground
One of the common grounds presented in both articles is that
climate change and global warming have s brought about
adverse effects on humanity, environments, and different
ecosystems and habitats. The article state s that that current and
possible future consequences of global warming and climate
change will bring about serious complications for future
generations, which makes it the greatest threat that humanity is
facing. Both articles have also discuss ed the issue of the United
States withdrawing from or and not taking part in the effort to
fight against actions that bring about the adverse effects of
climate change. The c Common ground also occurs in both
articles when the authors discuss how the developed countries
have resisted following the Kyoto Protocol, which requires them
to lower their greenhouse gas emissions percentage over a time
period of five years.
Statistics and other Supporting evidence
Both articles do not have many much statistics since they are
qualitative, making them more focuse d on collecting and
analyzing the non-numerical data to understand the different
opinions regarding global warming and climate change. Gale’s

5. article statistics suggest s that people have started to note that
(((the anthropogenic climate is taking place over the past years,
and an estimate of half the American's do not contribute in
preventing or fighting against actions that bring about global
warming.))) This article's statistics also show that around 66%
of the public believe that human activities bring about global
warming, and the change in climate has begun to take effect,
and soon it will pose a severe threat to humanity (SOURCE). .
Gale's article statistics also show that research by NASA has
shown that climate change has caused sea-level rise at a rate of
3.3 millimeters annuall y(SOURCE). On the other hand, Curtis's
article statistics show that temperatures can rise by as much as
10 degrees Celsius in some regions of the globe under the
current scenario of climate change(SOURCE). Despite this, the
article's statistics also show that while developing countries
have agreed to reduce their emission, the developed countries
have refused to follow the Kyoto protocol since the
undeveloped countries are the ones experiencing the significant
effect of climate change global warming. Both articles are topic
overviews, which makes them to not have any participants to be
involved in the research.Comment by Dodson, Dianna:
Confusing
The article by Curtis titled 'Climate change must be addressed
in developed countries' is more rhetorical. This is because the
article explains how the developed countries greatly contribute
to the emission of carbon, which causes climate change, yet
they have refused to take part or and have taken little action to
reduce activities that causes climate change. The article tries to
explain that despite the great effort taken by other countries to
convince the developed countries to reduce their carbon
emission, the developed countries have refused, suggesting that
it will negatively affect their economies. y.
Credibility
One of the experts in the article title ‘Climate change must be
addresses in developed countries’ is its the article’s author,
Curtis Doebbler. One of the reasons that make Curtis be an

6. expert for this article is that he is a well- renowned
international human rights lawyer; thus, he is well aware of how
to present the article as well as on how to fight for human rights
for the poor countries denied by the developed countries.
Through the assistance of other experts such as Sharon Begley
as well as books such as 'Don't sell your coat' by Harold,
Ambler Curtis has been able to explain and shows how the
developed countries who are the major cause of climate change
do not care about the developing and undeveloped countries.
These experts have an interest in showing how the developed
countries led by the United States do not take part in dealing
with the emission of carbon to reduce climate change. One of
the things that make the experts in this article credible is that
they are well-renowned lawyers and writers who want all
humans to be treated equally and fairly. Gale's other article,
titled ‘Global warming and climate change,' is a topic overview,
that gives making it have several experts involved in the
research. One of the expert s organization used in this article is
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
prove that climate changes are caused by natural processes that
place in the earth's atmosphere and cause adverse effects over
time. One reason that makes NASA is an expert in climate
change is that it mainly focuses on research regarding the
earth’s processes and human activities. The article has also used
experts such as Gallup, who are focuses d on research regarding
public interest in climate change, to show how individual’s
opinions have changed to believing that human activities cause
climate change.Comment by Dodson, Dianna: Article titles get
“Title” quotation marks.
Book titles get italics.Comment by Dodson, Dianna: Why the
comma?
Conclusion
Both articles provide well-analyzed reports and a topic
overview regarding climate change and global warming. The
articles assist in understanding the different causes of climate
change and how the developed countries refuse to take part in

7. reducing carbon emission, suggesting that it would affect their
economy. With both articles having a different focus on global
warming and climate change, I would recommend individuals
read both articles to understand both authors' different
viewpoints. With the current climate change and global
warming effects that are taking place around the world, I agree
with both articles that it is high time that people start to take
action against some of the activities that cause climate change.
In both articles, the authors have ensured that there is no
inappropriate language used.
Are you supposed to provide a Works Cited page?
Kitchens 1
Last Name 1
First Name Last Name
Professor Lindsey Barlow
English 1302-33003
13 February 2017
Education and Where It’s Headed
Everyone is reliant on the education system to be functional, as
school is a forum for people to learn how to prosper in the
world. There are many topics in politics and in the U.S. media
surrounding educational systems. One increasingly meaningful
problem since the Regan era is private vs. for-profit education.
Ellen Bosenberg and Corey Iacono discuss the multi-faceted
issues surrounding education in their articles, “Privatizing
Public Schools: Education in the Marketplace” and “3 Reasons
to Support School Choice.” I chose these articles as they are in

8. direct opposition to each other. Bosenberg’s article does a good
job at underlining the root of the issue, yet is weak in other
areas like providing good evidence, and discussing how it is
currently at play in the world. Iacono’s article is very well
organized and attacks a clear opposition, but does not have good
evidence. Neither article discusses the oppositional arguments
in detail, or list very much common ground which makes them
both seem biased.
Titles are very important to a written piece because they help
define its credibility and generate immediate interest. Unless
the piece is satirical in nature, the title in a political text should
be gripping, yet scholarly. The title of Bosenberg’s paper does
that in a way, but only to an informed reader. The author states
the topic, “Privatizing Public Schools,” which on its own would
be very dry, and follows it with “Education in the Marketplace.”
The second part has one stop and think about how education has
been entering the market. Most people know in the back of their
minds this has been going on, but if one isn’t fully aware, the
title might be enough to turn one off. This article is sort of like
the T.V. show Frasier; it is interesting, but could use some more
hype in its preview to gain more attention. The second article
called “3 Reasons to Support School Choice” is also very cut
and dry, although a bit more interesting (Iacono). The
conservatives are, apparently, now calling the idea of
educational privatization “school choice.” This is a good move
because now social ideologists and pro-public school advocates
won’t immediately discredit the article because of the word
“privatization.” Also, including the words “school choice” is
objectively attractive as this is not a common idea in our
countries’ culture, and I’m sure many parents would agree.
Iacono’s title is a bit more drawing to a general reader’s
attention than Bosenberg’s.
An author’s claim should be clearly stated, yet subtle enough to
point out that it is not the end-all be-all message. This lets the
audience rally behind the belief or argument, or if they are in
opposition, the claim would hopefully inform them of the side

9. of the story they possibly had not explored. When the claim is
political in nature, it will inevitably will lean left, right, or
potentially way off to one side. In this regard, Bosenberg does a
decent job, but is also a little too vague. Her claim is that, “The
privatization of public schooling is cause for considerable
concern,” which is extremely general, but for the most part
sums up how general and all-over-the-place the article actually
is (Bosenberg). She does indeed recognize the reasons for
concern in the article, but she fails to address why it deserves
considerable concern now. The issue being discussed has been
tossed around since the late seventies, and is just re-surfacing in
the media lately. Why should one be concerned now, if not in
the past? I feel like this article could have been written twenty
years ago, without the current citations, and gained just as much
attention. Yes, this means the claim stands the test of time, but
is the author just fishing for hot-button issues? In the second
article, Iacono’s claim is that, “The evidence [provided in his
article] clearly demonstrates that school choice programs are
desirable and ought to be pursued on a larger scale” (Iacono).
He assumes that these types of school systems are “desirable”
without any evidence to back it up. The evidence he points to is
evidence of school-choice viability, which does not demonstrate
his point. He also says school-choice “ought to be pursued on a
larger scale” which implies internationality, but he only
provides evidence based on US school systems. In contrast,
Bosenberg’s claim is very general and fits her argument well;
whereas Iacono’s claim is very clear, yet doesn’t really suite his
argument.
The opposition in an article regarding a social problem can
usually be deduced without stating it exactly as they are
discussed frequently in politics and the media. It is beneficial to
the reader to hear opposing arguments from each side, but there
are not always two clear sides to every problem. In her article,
Bosenberg does not clearly state the opposition, but explains the
advocating of privatization in the education field as attributed
to, “Two distinct yet mutually accommodating discourses

10. (among others) that advance the right-wing agenda for
education are neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.” She is
putting blame on political groups for the emergence of
education in the marketplace. Then she considers the issue a
“right-wing agenda,” which puts the blame more on the side of
conservativism. In Iacono’s article, he gets right to the
opposition by quoting pro-public school advocates United
Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) who say, “Public
education is under attack. Corporate-backed behemoths like
Walmart and Gap are pouring millions into manufacturing a new
pro-corporate education reform consensus in city halls, and on
our campuses.… Their goal? To privatize our public education
system, turning over a major public good into private hands —
in the process, demonizing teachers and their unions.” This was
quoted from an interesting source; however, this may not add
credibility to his argument because it is a borderline conspiracy
theory. On the other hand, this was an excellent quote to attack
because it is in direct opposition to his overall claim. He retorts
the USAS argument with, “This ‘pro-corporate education
reform’ refers to school choice, a system in which the
government finances a family’s choice of education through
vouchers (or tax credits) rather than having a family’s only
affordable option be to send their children to their assigned
public school” (Iacono). He does an excellent job here by
rewording the opposition, and then explaining it in favor of his
argument. Iacono did a better job at illustrating and debating an
oppositional argument than Bosenberg, but Bosenberg did a
better job at choosing a credible source.
The common ground between the arguments is especially
important to note because it shows the author is not completely
one-sided. The claim Bosenberg makes in her article, in itself,
implies a common ground by saying, “The privatization of
public schooling is cause for considerable concern”
(Bosenberg). The author is implying that even though
privatization is already coming to fruition, we should address
the problems as they come. Bosenberg also gives a statement to

11. show that privatization could potentially yield reform that
would benefit us by admitting, “this dismal scenario offers
opportunities to develop transformative educational
relationships. Parents, students, teachers, and researchers can
organize around issues of concern such as school privatization,
and work together to improve schooling.” This quote is
important to note because there are obviously two sides to this
argument, especially if one knows a libertarian. At the end of
the quote, however, the author urges all those orbiting the
education field to “organize around” privatization to improve
schooling. This implies the author’s belief that the rally against
privatization should start from within the school system. There
is not enough in the common ground to urge the reader to take a
second look at the positive side of privatization. There is no
common ground in Iacono’s article. In comparison, Bosenberg’s
article seems slightly more credible because she mentions some
common ground.
To make a point really concrete, the author must list good
evidence, or else he or she would just be stating his or her own
opinions. When analyzing evidence for a political issue, some
people more readily consider economic arguments of
cost/benefit outcomes, while others tend to judge it ethically.
First, Bosenberg provides evidence for the so called neo-
conservatist “right-wing agenda,” when she connects it to the
voucher system. Voucher programs have been implemented in
several other places and are stepping stones towards
privatization. She mentions vouchers had, “resulted in a
program in which most (70 percent) of the school choices
available were religious schools” (Bosenberg). This provides
great evidence for the argument because, per the author, “Neo-
conservatism exerts ideological hegemony by shaping the
discourse of schooling and influencing curriculum content.”
This basically means conservatives have been trying to
implement more religion in schools, and inevitably into society,
by means of their influence. One should, however, note that her
statement about the voucher program was regarding the

12. Milwaukee school system, and fails to mention how much
momentum this conservative agenda has gained. She goes on to
talk about a situation that spanned several years where the state
tried to privatize education and found that, “the state’s takeover
of Philadelphia’s schools and the involvement of Edison
Schools Inc. with the district reveal strong public sentiment
against such moves,” Bosenberg includes evidence as she
relates this story to her argument. One piece of this evidence
states, “’data reveals that in nearly 90 percent of Edison
schools—61 out of 69 schools-for which results are available,
students perform substantially below standard levels set by the
state compared to other students in the state”’ (qtd. In
Bosenberg). This is a strong sounding piece of evidence,
although upon closer review, there could be some more
clarification in the numbers as to why those were the only
schools available and how many potential numbers there could
have been, if the state had really taken over. This last bit of
evidence regarding Philadelphia’s school system also proves the
author’s other point that, “Neo-liberals are primarily concerned
about exercising their rights in a “free market” economy,”
because they successfully passed legislation in the state to
commercialize the entire school district (Bosenberg). On the
other hand, Iacono clearly list only three reasons why school -
choice should trump public school systems. One reason the
author mentions is, “School choice reduces racial segregation
and benefits the poor” (Iacono). In his evidence for this claim,
he quotes Greg Forster, a senior fellow with the Friedman
Foundation for Educational Choice, saying, “One finds no net
effect on segregation from school choice. No empirical study
has found that [school] choice increases racial segregation.”
This mentions that school choice has no net effect of racial
segregation, so how could the author claim that this reduces
racial segregation? Iacono also suggests that school choice
improves academic outcomes, but as evidence he provides,
“attending private religious schools is associated with the
highest level of academic achievement” (Iacono). This not only

13. says that those attending private religious schools would
achieve more than those in non-religious private schools, but
also does not prove his claim that having a choice would
improve academic outcomes. Overall, both authors could have
chosen better evidence to prove their own point. It is also worth
mentioning that, in some ways, the authors prove each other’s
points.
Just after last year’s elections, the debate over privatization is a
trending topic and is steadily gaining momentum. There is no
clear winner, as both sides of the argument could offer positive
economic and ethical points. Bosenberg did a very good job at
articulating and discovering the roots of the issue, but she is
very clearly against privatization of public schools. In her
article, she seems biased on the issue because she does not list
any disadvantages of public schooling, or list any positive
attributes of privatization of schools. She offers decent evidence
to illustrate her claim, but the evidence is only a micro sample
on a macroscale issue. Iacono’s article has a more impactful
message because it is very straightforward, intended for a
general audience, and there are no dots to connect. In
comparison, both were very informational, but Bosenberg’s was
a bit more convoluted, and seems intended for a more specific
audience; while Iacono’s was more general and had a clear
progression of rhetoric between stances, but has some logical
flaws in the evidence. Both articles seem a bit biased, but this is
common in political arguments, as most of them are put out by
interest groups attempting to get out the vote. It would take
reading both articles to gather enough details on this debate to
not be one-sided. Neither author sheds much light on the
oppositional argument, and this limits their credibility.

14. Work Cited
Bosenberg, Ellen . "Privatizing Public Schools: Education in the
Marketplace." Privatizing Public Schools. N.p., n.d. Web. 05
Mar. 2017.
Iacono, Corey. "3 Reasons to Support School Choice | Corey
Iacono." FEE. Foundation for Economic Education, 26 Jan.
2015. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.
Last Name 10
First Name Last Name
Professor Barlow
English 1302-33003
20 March 2017Is Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) Real or
Fake?
Existing now at the moment of societal life, many argue that
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) – formerly known as
Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) – is a fake disorder.
Others argue that it is unethical to claim that a disorder is false
when it has evidence to prove it. Since DID is caused by severe
trauma at a young age, many have debated whether these
negative memories are false and if DID patients have recalled
memories that did not really happen. In the articles, “Can

15. People Have Multiple Personalities?” by Scott O. Lilienfeld and
Hal Arkowitz and “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and
Fiction” by Robert T. Muller, the authors address the issue at
hand. The claims of both articles are effective because the
authors were able to support their position on the argument with
facts/statistics.
In “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?,” Lilienfeld and
Arkowitz organized their article in a way that is simple for
readers to understand. The article starts out by giving examples
of TV shows and films that are based on DID. The major
differences between the two sides of the argument are then
explained in the next couple of paragraphs. Towards the end of
the article, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz come to a conclusion based
on their research. Furthermore, this article appeals to logos. The
reason why is that the authors of this article are persuading the
reader about whether or not DID is real with logic and reason.
In “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction,” Muller
organizes his article in a similar, but different way than
Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article. The article also begins with
an example of a film that is based on DID. Following the
example is an explanation that “DID is a diagnosis that is not
without controversy” (Muller). In the rest of the article, an
interview with Dr. Brand, a psychologist, is stated in the format
of an interview, with questions and answers. Furthermore,
unlike Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article, Muller’s article
appeals to ethics. Muller convinces/persuades the reader with
information from a credible source – a psychologist. Moreover,
in both articles, the introduction and conclusion of the articles
were weak. The introduction of each article did not provide a
preview of the article to the readers. The conclusion did not
summarize the article or restate the claim. The conclusion in
Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article only stated the author’s
suggestion on how to get patients to understand their disorder
better. The conclusion in Muller’s article wasn’t exactly a
conclusion – it was just Dr. Brand’s answer to the last interview
question. Thus, the lack of summary in the introduction and

16. conclusion makes both the introduction and conclusion weak in
both articles.
To make the reader want to read an article, there must be a
strong and clear title. The main purpose of a title is not only to
catch the reader’s attention, but also to provide a brief preview
of what the article is going to be about. The title of Lilienfeld
and Arkowitz’s article, “Can People Have Multiple
Personalities?,” is strong, well-written, and catches the reader’s
attention. This is a strong and well-written title because it gives
the reader an insight of the article as evidenced by the words
“Multiple Personalities.” Additionally, since the title is in a
question format, it causes the reader to critically think about the
answer and then encourages the reader to read the article.
Similar to the previous article’s title, the title of Muller’s
article, “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction,” is
also strong, well-written, and catches the reader’s attention. The
title clearly states what the article is going to be about, making
it strong and well-written. The words “Line Between Fact and
Fiction” indicate to the reader that this article is going to
explain which statements about DID/MPD are real/true and
which are fake/false. This title would also catch the attention of
those who are interested in DID/MPD because, if they read this
article, the truth about what is real and false would be
explained. Since both articles have a strong, well-written, and
attention grabbing title, both at least begin effectively.
A claim is the position or side that the author(s) are on. Having
a claim lets the reader know whether the author(s) are for or
against the argument at hand. In addition, having a claim makes
the entire article blend together, instead of going back and forth
from one side to another. In other words, any information stated
after the claim will be able to relate back to the claim, making
the claim one of the most important parts of an article. The
authors of “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?” claim,
"Plenty of evidence supports the idea that DID is not merely a
matter of faking and that most people with the condition are
convinced that they possess one or more alters" (Lilienfeld and

17. Arkowitz). Their claim is that Dissociative Identity Disorder,
more commonly known as Multiple Identity Disorder, is a real
mental disorder. This is a strong claim because it is clear and
has evidence that supports it. The authors support their claim
with statistics from a survey that was conducted by a
psychiatrist, a hospital, the psychiatrist’s colleagues, and from
studies done by other psychiatrists. In the second article,
Muller’s claim is, “scientists and clinicians who support the
trauma model…believe that trauma comes first and is an
antecedent that has a causal role in DID. It is so painful for the
child to deal with the trauma that they begin to dissociate while
the experience is happening” (Muller). Muller, in other words,
argues that DID/MPD is a real disorder. Compared with the
claim of the first article, this is also a strong claim because it
also has multiple pieces of evidence to back it up. Muller
supports his claim with data, clinical interviews, and research
done by others. Overall, the claims in both articles are effective
and strong with not much difference between one another.
An opposition is the side that goes against the side that the
article is arguing for. Although the opposition’s belief is
different, it does not mean that their beliefs are wrong; hence, it
is still important to mention the opposition’s side of the
argument. In the former article, the authors mention the
opposition by stating, “Despite such practices, persuasive
evidence for discrete coexisting personalities in individuals is
lacking” (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). The opposition that is stated
is quoted fairly. Although there are many pieces of evidence
that prove that DID is a real disorder, there hasn’t been much
evidence proving the coexistence of personalities in a person
diagnosed with DID. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz go into further
detail of their opposition by stating,
The reported distinctions among alters are mostly anecdotal,
unconfirmed and difficult to interpret. For instance, the
handwriting and voices of people without DID may also vary
over brief periods, especially after a mood change…Individuals
with DID almost surely experience dramatic psychological

18. changes across situations, so it would be surprising if their
physiology did not change as well. (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz)
The opposition is supported with an example that demonstrates
how we can distinguish one alter from another. The explanation
that follows the example, however, proves that the recorded
evidence for coexistence of personalities is invalid.
In Muller’s article, instead of just stating his side, he also
provides the reader with the opposition’s side. Muller includes
the opposition by stating, “they…consider DID to…be over-
diagnosed” (Muller). Like the first article’s opposition, this
opposition is also quoted fairly. Although the opposing side
believes that DID is a real disorder, they also believe that it
may have been diagnosed too many times, such that it seems
unrealistic. Muller further explains the opposition by stating,
They believe overzealous therapists reinforce patients when
they display certain behaviours and encourage patients who do
not have DID to begin to believe they have the disorder.
Supposedly then these patients, who they think are fantasy-
prone and are highly suggestible by nature, begin to enact
having DID. (Muller)
Muller included this to further explain the opposition because it
explains why the opposing side believes that DID/MPD is over-
diagnosed. Perhaps, psychiatrists are hoping that their patients
have the disorder, such that they can study it; however, the very
fact that they encourage the disorder means that it isn’t a real
one. It also, strangely, speaks to patients’ desires to satisfy their
therapists – to give them what they think they want. The
opposition of both articles was quoted fairly, as mentioned
earlier, making this another key factor that contributes to
making the articles effective.
Although a topic becomes controversial because of the beliefs
of two or more sides, there is always a common ground. It is
important to mention a common ground in the article because it
shows that, although the sides disagree, at some point, they will
agree before they part ways once again. The authors of “Can
People Have Multiple Personalities?,” however, did not mention

19. a common ground. Regarding the topic on Dissociative Identity
Disorder or Multiple Identity Disorder, the common ground that
Lilienfeld and Arkowitz should have mentioned is that both
sides of this argument agree on the fact that DID, if it is real, is
a result of a trauma. If an individual experiences a trauma –
such as abuse – as a child, there is a high chance that he/she
could develop DID over time in order to avoid bad memories.
The lack of addressing even this one piece of common ground
shows a limited reach made by Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, perhaps
because they simply don’t want to take the time to develop
common ground. They are more interested in stating their own
views and research, rather than looking at the topic as a whole.
As opposed to Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article, Muller’s
article does mention a common ground. With the topic of DID at
hand, Muller mentions the common ground by stating, “the
fantasy model…is also sometimes called the iatrogenic model.
Those who follow this model consider DID to exist to some
extent” (Muller). Muller is implying that both sides of the
argument believe that DID is a real disorder. Since the author of
“DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction” mentioned a
common ground, this makes the article a bit stronger than the
previous one.
For an article to be valid or trustworthy, there has to be
evidence stated in the article that supports the claim the authors
are arguing. Unfortunately, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article
does this in a mediocre way, such that they make it appear as
though they have valid evidence, when actually they do not. For
instance, in one part of the article, they state, “In a survey
conducted in 1989 by psychiatrist Colin Ross, then at Charter
Hospital of Dallas, and his colleagues, the average number of
alters was 16” (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). This statement may be
considered strong when it is first read, but when it is read again,
there are noticeable things that make it weak. The statement
includes the date of when the survey was conducted, who
conducted the survey, and the result of the survey; however, the
name of the survey, the number of people that were surveyed,

20. the number of males and females that were surveyed, which
races were surveyed, and where the survey was conducted are
not mentioned in the statement. The lack of these items makes
the evidence weak because, without this information, the reader
will not know whether or not this was a valid survey. Further
along in the article, there is stronger evidence that is stated:
“Indeed, a review in 1999 by one of us (Lilienfeld) and his
colleagues found that between 35 and 71 percent of patients
with DID also have borderline personality disorder” (Lilienfeld
and Arkowitz). This evidence is stronger than the previous
evidence. From this statistic, the reader knows that only those
with DID were reviewed, the review was in 1999, and this
review was not based off of one person, but many.
In contrast to Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, Muller did not have any
directly stated evidence in the article. The majority of the
article was an interview between The Trauma & Mental Health
Report and Dr. Brand; thus, the only evidence that this article
had was what Dr. Brand had mentioned. Some evidence that
should have been stated is when and where the interview with
Dr. Brand occurred, the dates and details of the cases that Dr.
Brand mentioned, and other cases, experts, and/or interviews
that are related to the topic. Having varied strengths of evidence
makes the article more effective than an article that only has
strong or weak evidence; therefore, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s
article is more effective than Muller’s in this area.
Articles that mention experts and their studies, if any, are more
credible and reliable. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz mentioned
multiple experts in their article. For example, they state,
“Psychiatrist Frank Putnam of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital
has argued for the use of DID ‘bulletin boards’ on which alters
can post messages for one another in notebooks or other
convenient venues” (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). This convinces
me that Frank Putnam is an expert because of his title and the
name of the hospital he is currently employed at. Since DID
deals with psychology and Frank Putnam is a psychiatrist, this
makes him very credible. Conversely, their other supposed

21. “expert” is an actress and not credible in the least. Lilienfeld
and Arkowitz state, “actress Toni Collette plays Tara
Gregreson, a Kansas mother who has dissociative identity
disorder (DID)…As with others with DID, Tara vacillates
unpredictably between various personalities, often referred to as
alters, over which she does not have control.” This does not
convince me that Toni Collette is an expert just because she is
an actress, as evident in her title. The article states that Collette
plays a woman with DID, and this means that she, herself,
doesn’t have DID. If the authors would have mentioned that she
knew someone with DID or had a psycholo gy or psychiatry
degree, then this would have convinced me that she is an expert.
Even despite their use of an actress, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s
article, when compared to “DID: Drawing the Line Between
Fact and Fiction” by Muller, is nevertheless more credible than
Muller’s. The reason is Muller’s article had only one expert,
when Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article had multiple. The only
expert that was directly stated in Muller’s article is
“Psychologist Bethany Brand, a professor at Towson University,
and an expert on Dissociative Identity Disorder” (Muller). Dr.
Brand is a credible expert, as is evident in her title and place of
employment. Since DID is related to psychology and Dr. Brand
is a psychologist, this makes her credible. Because this article
only had one expert, some experts that could have been stated
are other psychologists or psychiatrists, people that had been
diagnosed with DID, etc. Having experts is another important
factor in order to make an article effective; thus, Lilienfeld and
Arkowitz’s article is more effective than Muller’s in this area,
as well.
The argument on whether or not Dissociative Identity Disorder
is a real disorder doesn’t seem to be coming to an end any time
soon. The authors – Lilienfeld and Arkowitz and Muller –
presented their argument on this topic in strong and weak ways.
Some of the evidence that was provided in “Can People Have
Multiple Personalities?” was not strong enough and confused
me about whether their point was to prove that DID is real or to

22. prove that it is fake. I would also prefer for these authors to
have more statistics in their article. Although they did have
many experts and surveys mentioned, the amount of statistics
provided wasn’t enough to convince me. On the other hand,
“DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction” by Muller
was an interesting and informative article; however, due to the
lack of experts and evidence, this made the article as a whole
less effective. If the author would have provided more experts
and more directly stated evidence, the article would have been
better. Overall, I would recommend “Can People Have Multiple
Personalities?” and “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and
Fiction” only to those who are interested in DID/MPD, though
not as an informative one because of the lack of statistics and
evidences that was provided.
Works Cited
Lilienfeld, Scott O., and Hal Arkowitz. "Can People Have
Multiple Personalities?" Scientific American. N.p., 22 Aug.
2011. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.
Muller, Robert T. "DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and
Fiction." Psychology Today. N.p., 02 May 2014. Web. 01 Mar.
2017.
Last Name 1
Last Name 7
First Name Last Name
Professor Barlow
ENGL 1302-33002
20 March 2017Rape Culture vs. College Girls: The Lie Within
There are many problems in our society that need to be fixed.
Actually fixing those problems, though, is easier said than done.
When it comes to the topic of safety, stronger initiatives need to
be taken in order to protect one another. In particular, the topic
of rape is a very controversial subject because individuals like

23. to pick sides rather than solve the actual issue at hand. What is
even more controversial, one could argue, is the subject of
campus rape. Recently, I have read two articles that present
completely different perspectives on the campus rape issue. The
two articles are “The Campus Rape Myth” by Heather Mac
Donald and “Campus Rape Crisis” by Michelle Goldberg.
Though both articles address the 1-in-5 statistic, which states
that one in five girls are sexually assaulted while in college,
Mac Donald disagrees with this statistic, whereas Goldberg uses
it to back up the fact that campus rape is a growing problem.
Despite Goldberg and Mac Donald’s few weak points, both
articles are effective in presenting their arguments because they
have many strong points, sufficient evidence, and take a side
that people did not think was an option.
A title is crucial for articles because that is what gets the article
read. It is the first thing people read when opening an article.
Without an eye-catching heading, an article will be overlooked
and ignored. The article “The Campus Rape Myth” by Mac
Donald really attracts readers. The title is effective because it
made me want to find out more by clicking on it. For one, it has
the word “rape” in the title. This word by itself attracts
attention from almost anyone. People will find it interesting and
want to find out what it’s about. In addition, the word “myth”
brings about questions that the readers want an answer to. The
combination of these two buzzwords could also potentially
make readers angry because some may instantly react negatively
to the idea that rape could be deemed a myth. Similarly, in the
second article, Goldberg’s title, “Campus Rape Crisis,” is also
very effective. By including the word “crisis,” people will ask
themselves what makes it a crisis. They will ponder on what
makes the issue so problematic. Despite the articles having
opposing views, they both will attract readers to their work.
A claim is another important part of a writer’s work. It states
the position that the writer takes. It needs to be clear and strong
to keep the reader reading. The article that I read did have a
very strong claim, despite it not being clear enough.

24. MacDonald’s claim that I inferred is that it is incorrect for
universities to assume “that one-quarter of all college girls will
be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their
college years.” She believes that this statistic is wrong and
shouldn’t be a fact that people should readily accept.
Furthermore, she believes that people have modified the
definition of rape, which increases the statistics for rape. I will
go into detail about the changing definitions of rape in the next
paragraph. Even though I couldn’t find the claim explicitly
stated, it was still strong. In the case of Goldberg’s article, the
claim is that “the system is broken” (12). The system refers to
the criminal justice system and universities not allowing the
victim to get the fairness he or she deserves. Goldberg believes
that women are not getting their justice because, in some way,
people think it is their fault for being raped. The problem with
this claim is that Goldberg needs to be more specific. Her claim
was hard for me to figure out. Even though I also had to infer
Mac Donald’s claim, her claim was at least noticeably implied.
The opposition is the opposite side of the argument. It gives the
writer the reason to argue with the subject at hand. The
opposition in Mac Donald’s dispute are feminists. They believe
that they can define what rape is. According to Mac Donald,
“Sixty-five percent of what the feminist researchers called
‘completed rape’ victims and three-quarters of ‘attempted rape’
victims said that they did not think that their experiences were
‘serious enough to report.’” Mac Donald’s point is that there is
a difference between what feminist researches say and what the
actual victims believe. If the victims thought that the crimes
weren’t serious enough to report, then it wasn’t a crime at all in
their eyes. The suspected victims, however, were probably still
put into statistics erroneously. The opposition in Goldberg’s
article was everyone who would side with the men in trial.
Goldberg hated that fact that women were victim-shamed
because of the instances at which the rape happened. An
example that was given was a circumstance in which both
parties were drunk. At first, the man lost the trial, but later

25. appealed. The guy claimed that “since he’d been drinking too,
technically she was an assailant as well” (Goldberg 2). With
this testimony, he was able to go back to trial to defend himself
so he could try to get back into his university. Luckily, for this
case, he didn’t win his ticket back into college again.
Experts are people who know more information about a topic
and can help make an article’s claim stronger. They aid the
author by providing credibility. One example of an expert in
Mac Donald’s work is professor Alan Charles Kors at the
University of Pennsylvania. According to Kors, “’Universities
are equipped to handle plagiarism, not rape.’” Kors’ point is
that it is not a college’s place to determine what is rape and
what is not rape. Rather, a university’s primary focus should be
on things that involve the education of students, thus leaving
the crime that happens to the police. Another credible expert
that was in the article was Brett Sokolow, a rape consultant.
When Mac Donald was talking about how rape victims don’t
call in for help, she mentions Sokolow. In his experience, he
explains that the main problem is that “on so many of our
campuses, very few people ever call. And mostly, we’ve
resigned ourselves to the under-utilization of these resources”
(Mac Donald). In other words, Sokolow believes that this could
hurt the statistics of what happens because people don’t report
these crimes. An example of an expert in Goldberg’s article is
David Lisak. Lisak is a “leading scholar on campus rape and a
consultant for universities trying to develop responses”
(Goldberg 2). According to Lisak, “’When students do report
these assaults, they are much more likely to turn to someone in
the university community than to law enforcement’” (Goldberg
2). He feels that students who have been assaulted corner the
university because they are forced to take action. He then goes
on to explain that, “Because of that, universities are stuck. They
can’t ignore these reports, either morally, ethically or legally.
So this is where we are: confronted with a problem that is really
mostly serious criminal conduct and asking universities to
respond and investigate and adjudicate” (Goldberg 2). Lisak

26. believes that it is not a university’s place to act on these
instances, but rather law enforcement’s. This is similar to that
of Kors’ views in Mac Donald’s argument. Furthermore, he
feels that it is not the school’s fault if the aggressor walks away
innocent because the crime should have been reported to the
police instead. This expert does make Goldberg’s argument
more credible due to Lisak’s position and knowledge on the
subject. Furthermore, this expert does very well in aiding the
author’s view point and gives the argument at hand more
credibility because it shows that schools do not take or want to
take responsibility, thus not giving the victim justice.
Supporting evidence is proof that helps one’s argument. It is
important to have because it makes one’s claim more valid.
Without it, an article may not look credible or accurate. Mac
Donald references a study as his evidence that involves asking
women if they had been raped throughout their college years.
The study yielded very few wanted results at first, so they had
to change the way they were getting their data. Mac Donald
states that, “rather than asking female students about rape per
se, Koss [the person who started the study] asked them if they
had experienced actions that she then classified as rape.” Due to
Koss changing the wording, Mac Donald believes that this
would make Koss’ study invalid. The reason why is that what
Koss believes constitutes rape might be different from what
other people think. Some individuals may say that a women
wasn’t raped, but by Koss’ standards, she might have been.
Pointing out the problems with the unclear definition of rape in
this study makes Mac Donald’s claim stronger because it proves
that people are modifying the definition of rape to yield better
results. Furthermore, this is a clear opposition to Mac Donald’s
argument because the study tries to prove the tenet of
universities, whereas her argument wants to disprove it.
Another piece of evidence that Mac Donald provides is that “A
survey of sorority girls at the University of Virginia found that
only 23 percent of the subjects whom the survey characterized
as rape victims felt that they had been raped.” This is another

27. example of how different people see rape differently. This
evidence helps Mac Donald’s claim very well due to the fact
that she said that the definition of rape varies. Contrastingly, in
Goldberg’s article, she uses the 1-in-5 statistic to back up her
argument. Despite Mac Donald feeling as though that statistic
isn’t valid, Goldberg believes that it is indeed valid. When
talking about how law enforcement lacks in help, she explains
that “According to an April report of the White House Task
Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, ‘One in five
women is sexually assaulted in college.’” (Goldberg 13). This
provides information to people who do not know how often rape
occurs. By providing this evidence, individuals will realize
campus rape is a problem that should have more awareness and
help to be fixed. Goldberg goes on to say that, although this
statistic is often disputed, “a detailed analysis by PolitiFact
[states that], ‘the overall findings in the study were on par with
similar surveys conducted over the years that have measured
sexual assaults on campus’” (Goldberg 2). She believes that
since another study backs this statistic up, it must be true;
however, this is an example of a deductive invalid conclusion.
This means that Goldberg believes that it is a guaranteed truth
that the 1-in-5 statistic is true. Although this is invalid because
just because one study says it’s true, doesn’t mean that it is.
Because of this, her evidence is weak, and this makes her
argument’s credibility deteriorate.
Common ground is the part where everyone can agree before the
argument comes around. It is important because it shows that
the opposing sides can at least universally agree on something.
Common ground is established towards the end of Mac Donald’s
article. Mac Donald herself writes, “Maybe these young
iconoclasts can take up another discredited idea: college is for
learning.” In other words, she believes that the reformers should
acknowledge the real purpose for going to college. This is an
effective common ground statement, especially since it was put
toward the end of the article. By putting this at the end of the
article, the writer was able to grab everyone’s attention with

28. something with which we all can agree. Everyone who goes to
college is expected to learn, graduate, and get his or her degree.
What other reason is there for people to go? On the contrary,
common ground is established fairly early in Goldberg’s article.
Goldberg herself explains, “in the nationwide controversy over
the proper response to pervasive sexual assault on college
campuses, there is one thing almost everyone agrees on: school
disciplinary boards have rarely done a very good job of
handling these cases” (13). I believe that this is a strong
statement for her common ground because, instead of saying
that everyone can agree with it, she instead says that almost
everyone agrees. This leaves a little wiggle space for her
instead of there being a definite statement. Despite her common
ground being strong, I feel as though putting it in the beginning
has an awkward feeling. Putting it at the end of her article, like
Mac Donald did, would have a better effect on most readers.
Rape is always going to be a controversial topic, and people
will always clash when it is brought up. Mac Donald presented
her views in an excellent way throughout this article. Yes, she
had a few bad points, but the number of good points far
exceeded them. She effectively went over her unique argument
by providing sufficient evidence, and that gives her a fair
amount of credibility. Additionally, Goldberg’s article also
presented her ideas in an effective way. Although I agree with
Mac Donald’s ideas more, I was able to consider Goldberg’s
side and that by itself made her argument powerful. Goldberg
used a variety of information that really made me think
differently. I would recommend both articles for people to read.
They both provide an interesting argument. These articles
allowed me to learn more about an in-depth perspective in rape
culture that I didn’t even know existed. I completely agree with
most of what was said in Mac Donald’s article and believe that
we should take initiative to fix the way we analyze our
statistics. Additionally, I also agree with Goldberg that colleges
are not doing enough to help assault victims. I often found
myself in the middle of the arguments because they both argued

29. in an amazing manner. Lastly, reading opposing articles really
makes people understand how others think because they are able
to compare and contrast the different thoughts writers have.
Works Cited
Goldberg, Michelle. "CAMPUS RAPE CRISIS. (Cover story)."
Nation, vol. 298, no. 26, 23 June 2014, pp. 12-16. Academic
Search Complete,
eds.b.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=
2&sid=9248d499-a461-4e69-92de-
570f8670c82c%40sessionmgr103&hid=117&bdata=JnNpdGU9Z
Whvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=96327577&db=a9h. Accessed
10 Mar. 2017.
Mac Donald, Heather. "The Campus Rape Myth." City Journal,
Dec. 2008, www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-
13061.html. Accessed 12 Feb. 2017.
Last Name 9
First Name Last Name
Professor Barlow
ENGL 1302-33002
20 February 2017SAT: Systemic Advantage Test
College is a dream for many students in the United States and
across the globe, and every year hundreds of thousands of
students flock to their local high schools to take the SAT and
ACT exams. While high school and college admissions are
stressful enough without these tests, the added pressure of these
exams can seem unnecessary and unfair, but are they? Are these
tests worth the hours of studying and tears behind them? The
articles “Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test”
by Dr. Michele Hernandez of the Huffington Post and “In
defense of the SAT test” by Charles Lane of the Washington
Post attempt to answer these questions with opposing
viewpoints. Hernandez claims that the standardized tests are not
fair indicators of collegiate success and should not be used in

30. determining college acceptance; Lane, on the other hand, argues
that while the tests may have problems, the elimination of the
tests would cause more problems than it would remove. Lane’s
claim is more effective than Hernandez’s because he addresses
the other side of the argument more, but both articles lack
varying support for their opinions, which can render them
unsound in Hernandez’s case and non-cogent in Lane’s.
A title is a preview into what an article or story will tell you. A
successful title will grab the attention of the reader and should
provide some preview into what the article is about. The title
“Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test” is a very
interesting title and far more eye-catching than the Washington
Post’s article. The title suggests that there is something wrong
with the system of admissions that affects many students across
the country. According to the College Board, 1.7 million
students took the SAT in 2015. An article title that will change
the lives of that many students a year will definitely gain
traction and attention. The title also makes it clear what the
author’s claim and the entire article will be about. In contrast,
“In defense of the SAT test” is a much subtler title. While
searching articles on Google, I passed this article many times
because the title does not catch my attention, even though it has
one of the better arguments from those that I viewed. While a
stronger title like “The SAT Savior” would have been preferred,
I can understand why the author would choose to use a more
understated title. The title does clearly express the article’s
viewpoint and tell what the article will be about, but the title is
the polar opposite of the rest of the articles I viewed. Almost all
of the articles had extremely bold titles, so the author having a
weaker title separates it from the rest of the crowd. How
effective this technique actually was would depend on who is
searching for the article.
A claim is what an author is arguing and what they wish the
reader to take away from an article. It is important to analyze a
claim because the claim will determine whether the arguments
are suitable for the article. Hernandez never explicitly states

31. what her claim is; she only alludes to it with examples. One can
assume her claim is that the SAT is not a fair indicator in
college admissions because she calls College Board “Hogwash”
because of their claim that “These exams provide a path to
opportunities, financial support and scholarships, in a way
that’s fair to all students” (Hernandez). Not having a clear claim
is unfair to the audience because they are not offered direction.
In fact, the article just feels longwinded and pointless. Further,
Hernandez fails to properly structure her article in a way that
benefits the audience. On the other hand, Lane’s article has a
very clear claim. Lane made the clearest statement about his
argument in the middle of the article by expressing, “On a more
fundamental level, the aspiration that the SAT embodies — to
express a student’s academic aptitude in a single number —
strikes me as a useful, indeed, a noble one.” His claim is that
the SAT’s purpose is to give students an impartial, unbiased
playing field in college admissions and scholarships.
Throughout the article, he acknowledges other factors that
should be indicated in college admissions and indicates that the
SAT and ACT are not perfect. One point he made to drive home
his claim was that while grades can be good indicators of work
ethic, different schools will have different curriculums,
programs, and resources. This is a valid statement between two
public schools in the same city; imagine the difference between
two schools across the country. Lane continued to reaffirm his
claim from beginning to end, something that Hernandez does
not do.
The opposition is the other side of an argument. It is the views
and opinions that disagree with the claim that an author is
making. In order to change an opinion, both sides of a subject
should be presented, or else the argument will appear biased. In
her article, Hernandez failed to address the opposition;
therefore, her argument felt more like a rant than an argument.
Many teenagers and parents already feel that the SAT and ACT
are unfair and Hernandez ran away with that knowledge. She
complained in the article like she was a teenager herself without

32. explaining the benefits of the two tests at all. She made it seem
as if the SAT had no purpose at all. The closest thing Hernandez
does to address the other side of her argument is admitting the
benefit of the SAT Subject Tests and AP tests, but she does not
acknowledge that not all high schools offer AP classes or that
not all universities require or even accept SAT Subject Tests.
This harms her argument because it is not just for Hernandez to
convince the audience that the SAT is bad without supporting
her argument with statistics or examples that support this;
moreover, since the SAT is a test that gives results in numbers,
it would not be that difficult to find statistics or support to
address the other side. Hernandez simply chose not to do it.
Lane does the opposite in his article. He started his article by
addressing the common ground and the other side. He first
addresses the opposition when he proclaims, “Preparing for and
sitting through the SAT is a miserable experience (and an
expensive one, to boot), which many students just can’t master
for reasons having nothing to do with intellectual capability or
curiosity.” He mentions that the SAT is difficult for students do
well regardless of how smart they may actually be. This is
probably the most argued opinion in the discussion of
standardized tests. Many students feel that the SAT does not
cover information they were taught in school and that it is a test
that must be learned; hence, students do not perform as well on
the test as their grades may suggest they would. Lane combats
this argument in saying, “Yet SAT scores, for all their
limitations, contain some valid information,” and recognizing
other parts of an application are “by contrast, far more variable
and subjective.” He wants the audience to realize that the SAT
is the best way for colleges to even the playing field, indicating
that it is arguably the fairest part of college admission. This
makes sense because the test is the one thing that will not
change based on each student. The test itself is the most
objective thing that college admission officers get to see
because, unlike varying high schools or lives, the test is the
same.

33. The common ground of an article states something that both
sides can agree to. Similar to the opposing viewpoint, it is
important to analyze the common ground to determine whether
an author is biased. In “Save Our Teenagers,” Hernandez does
not properly address the common ground. The closest universal
statement delivered is: “Should colleges assume that brilliant
students simply hammer out triple 800s? I work with top SAT
scorers — many triple 800 students — and their stories are the
same: taking 10-15 full-length three-hour practice tests for two
years of intensive drilling” (Hernadez). This example attempts
to create a common ground because it shows that the SAT is
hard and it is difficult for students to achieve perfect scores, but
that is expected. This example fails at creating a common
ground because it simply iterates the purpose of tests in general.
The SAT is supposed to be difficult for even top students. If all
students that had 4.0 GPAs received perfect scores, this article
probably would proclaim the test should be harder. Since the
author does not say something truly important, the audience is
not united. Not establishing a true common ground has a
negative consequence on the article; for those people who
disagreed with the article to begin with, they have nothing to
make them trust the author of the article. Lane’s process of
addressing the common ground was completely different. He
spends the first four paragraphs creating a hypothetical
admissions test that was completely unbiased, fair, and an
amazing indicator of college success that he called TestPerfect
(Lane). Lane then tells the reader that TestPerfect does not exist
but asks “As long as access to higher education is a scarce
resource, for which students must compete, shouldn’t the
criteria of individual merit be as objective—as quantifiable—as
possible?” Almost everyone will agree the answer should be a
resounding “yes.” Millions of high school students across the
country worry about the SAT and getting into their dream
schools, and most people agree that more deserving students
should be granted admission. This is not a reality. Lane’s
recognition of this gets everyone reading on the same page. He

34. shows that college admissions are unfair and can be biased, so
he uses this to support his argument that the SAT makes college
admissions fairer than they would be without the test. This was
very important to his argument because without reminding
people that college admissions themselves are unfair and, later,
reminding the audience that the SAT was made to combat this,
people would not have changed their minds about his argument.
Credibility and experts are essential to an author’s argument.
Experts are people that have ample experience and knowledge
on a subject; thus, they can be trusted on the subject. It is
important to analyze experts so the audience can know if the
evidence they are being presented has merit. Both articles do a
good job of citing experts in different ways, but Hernandez does
a much more effective job. In Hernandez’s article, she is the
expert herself. To prove this, Hernandez declares, “I spent four
years working as an Assistant Director of Admissions at
Dartmouth College where I evaluated thousands of applicants
from around the world,” indicating that she has been immersed
in the realm of the SAT Test and college admission decisions
for many years. This is significant and the one part of the
argument where Hernandez has a true lead over Lane. Being
influential in the lives of hundreds of students by helping them
achieve their SAT score goals, counseling them during the
college application process, and being the person that decides
whether or not they were the best fit for the school of their
dreams is an expert on the SAT Test. Hernandez has insight into
the effects of the test. She’s seen firsthand the way students
study for the test and has rejected similar students from their
top school of choice from underperforming on the test. This
adds significant support to her argument and truly is the one
thing that makes her argument compelling. Lane does reference
some experts in his article. For example, he references George
Washington University, who recently changed their admissions
policy making the SAT and ACT tests optional. Using
universities such as George Washington University does show
that Lane is not biased and uses credible information, but the

35. information does not support his argument very much. In fact,
the inclusion of these examples in his article could sway the
audience in the opposite direction. People may think his point
was that more schools should offer test optional admissions
policies when that was not Lane’s point at all. He wanted the
audience to believe that these types of universities have
problems because of the test optional policies, but he does not
fully show that was what he meant. While doing this gave the
article credible sources, it may have taken away Lane’s
credibility if readers do not read closely.
Evidence is arguably the most important part of an essay. It is
the support that the author uses to justify his or her claim. Both
authors do a great job finding support for their claims. In
Hernandez’s article, she relied heavily on numbers and
statistics, while Lane focused more on history. In Hernandez’s
article, she claims, “Students from affluent areas spend $15,000
and up on SAT prep and top SAT tutors in New York command
$500-$1000 an hour.” This statements shows that the more
money you have, the better you can prepare for the SAT. She
shows that the SAT is not fair because people do not play fair.
A large part of her argument was centered around the SAT
being biased towards richer families because they can pay to
learn the test. This quote is great support for that; although,
without citing specific SAT tutors or test prep agencies, the
quote lacks complete credibility. Later she says, “The majority
of studies (like Stanford’s Bridge Report) agree that the best
predictor of college success is success in rigorous high school
classes, NOT SAT scores.” Hernandez named one of the most
prestigious institutions in the world during this statement:
Stanford University. Doing this shows the audience that even a
top university has done research with results that opposes the
SAT, but Hernandez doesn’t show the actual results of the study
or explain how it was conducted. This is a problem because it is
not fair to cite studies without explaining them. Lane uses
history in most of his argument. He explains how racism was
used against Jewish people during college admissions. He

36. explains how Ivy League Universities have not always been fair
in how they admit students. He acknowledges how holistic
review of applications has and will continue to create biases. He
does not use any statistics directly to support his argument,
other than a link to another article explaining the positive
effects of the SAT. Despite this, the support he used does work
well for the structure of his article and argument. His argument
is that the SAT makes college admission fairer, and he proved
this by showing examples of how this occurred. While more
statistics would have strengthened his argument, the examples
may work even better.
Ultimately both articles make vastly different arguments. Both
articles and authors make great points throughout their articles,
but Lane’s was significantly more effective. While Hernandez
does have great evidence and experts, she harmed her
credibility in her approach to the argument. By avoiding the
other side of the article, not creating a common ground or
delivering a concrete claim, and structuring her article in a form
that mirrored a rant, she alienated her audience. Even readers
that may agree with her argument could have been lost,
including me. Lane; however, had a clearer and more concise
argument. Not only does he have experts and evidence like
Lane, he made sure to continuously acknowledge the opposition
to his argument and show support that opposed. He also used a
very inquisitive approach, and in doing so, he forced the reader
to ask deep questions about what they believe. This was
extremely effective and even made me believe that it is better to
have the test then to lose it entirely.
Works Cited
Hernandez, Dr. Michele. "Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT
Reasoning Test." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com,
29 Mar. 2013. Web. 6 Mar. 2017.
Lane, Charles. "In Defense of the SAT Test." The Washington

37. Post. WP Company, 29 July 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2017.
Molding Your Analysis to the Comparative Analysis Format
If you completed the prior assignments correctly, then you have
chosen two academic articles over a topic you are interested in,
and you have completed a freewriting activity in which you
have analyzed separately the articles according to their title,
claim, statistics (or lack thereof), experts (or lack thereof),
contradiction, language, introduction, conclusion,
opposition/common ground, and assumption. It is now time to
take what you have written and begin putting it into the required
essay format.
Why the Format is the Way It Is
If you have read over the required format for essay that is in
your essay folder on eCampus, as well as taken a look at the
rubric I will use to grade the essay, you will notice that
everything is fairly prescriptive.
Each of your body paragraphs must begin with a topic sentence
that mentions what is about to be analyzed, as well as shows
why the item is necessary in a quality article. What follows is a
statement about whether the first article does indeed have an
effective title, claim, statistics, etc.. Then, that statement is
backed up with examples. The paragraph will then move on to
the next article. Often times, this means that a paragraph
analyzes one of the articles and then states, “Comparatively,
Article X is just effective and does Y,” or “Contrastingly,
Article X isn’t nearly as effective and does Y.” After that are
examples or quotes from the article that prove your point. The
paragraph then compares and contrasts the two articles more
fully. Finally, it ends in a conclusion sentence that reiterates
what you just said or further explains what you just said.

38. The reason why this essay is formatted this way is because you
are ultimately proving whether the articles are effective or not
at what they set out to do, as well as determining which article
is better. In order to do so, you must first establish what an
effective title, claim, statistics, etc. does before you begin
examining whether each article successfully completes it and
which one does it better. That is why each of these paragraphs
are structured as they are. You state what any article should be
doing, and then you delve into whether the first particular
article accomplishes what it should be doing. You then state,
“comparatively,” or “contrastingly,” or another transition word,
and then bring up the second article and what it does (and why
it is better or worse than the first article). You then fully
compare and contrast them. Finally, you provide a concluding
sentence.
An example of a strong paragraph:
A title is a preview into what an article or story will tell you. A
successful title will grab the attention of the reader and should
provide some preview into what the article is about. The title
“Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test” is a very
interesting title and far more eye-catching than the Washington
Post’s article. The title suggests that there is something wrong
with the system of admissions that affects many students across
the country. According to the College Board, 1.7 million
students took the SAT in 2015. An article title that will change
the lives of that many students a year will definitely gain
traction and attention. The title also makes it clear what the
author’s claim and the entire article will be about. In contrast,
“In Defense of the SAT Test” is a much subtler title. While
searching articles on Google, I passed this article many times
because the title does not catch my attention, even though it has
one of the better arguments from those that I viewed. While a

39. stronger title like “The SAT Savior” would have been preferred,
I can understand why the author would choose to use a more
understated title. The title does clearly express the article’s
viewpoint and tell what the article will be about, but the title is
the polar opposite of the rest of the articles I viewed. Almost all
of the articles had extremely bold titles, so the author having a
weaker title separates it from the rest of the crowd. How
effective this technique actually was would depend on who is
searching for the article. As said before, though, “Save Our
Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test” is far more
interesting than “In Defense of the SAT Test.”
-
A breakdown into each of the separate parts of the paragraph:
1. The paragraph begins with a topic sentence that mentions
what is about to be analyzed, as well as shows why the item is
necessary in a quality article.
A title is a preview into what an article or story will tell you. A
successful title will grab the attention of the reader and should
provide some preview into what the article is about.
2. What follows is a statement about whether the first article
does indeed have an effective title, claim, statistics, etc..
The title “Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test”
is a very interesting title and far more eye-catching than the
Washington Post’s article.
3. After that are examples or quotes from the article that prove
your point.
The title suggests that there is something wrong with the system
of admissions that affects many students across the country.

40. According to the College Board, 1.7 million students took the
SAT in 2015. An article title that will change the lives of that
many students a year will definitely gain traction and attention.
The title also makes it clear what the author’s claim and the
entire article will be about.
4. Then, you state, “comparatively” or “contrastingly” and bring
up the next title of the second article.
In contrast, “In Defense of the SAT Test” is a much subtler
title.
5. After that are examples or quotes from the article that prove
your point (and state why the second article is better or worse
than the first article).
While searching articles on Google, I passed this article many
times because the title does not catch my attention, even though
it has one of the better arguments from those that I viewed.
While a stronger title like “The SAT Savior” would have been
preferred, I can understand why the author would choose to use
a more understated title. The title does clearly express the
article’s viewpoint and tell what the article will be about, but
the title is the polar opposite of the rest of the articles I viewed.
Almost all of the articles had extremely bold titles, so the
author having a weaker title separates it from the rest of the
crowd. How effective this technique actually was would depend
on who is searching for the article.
6. Finally, you provide a concluding sentence.
As said before, though, “Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT
Reasoning Test” is far more interesting than “In Defense of the
SAT Test.”
Each of your body paragraphs needs to be written in this same
format, though the explanation and examples for some of your
paragraphs may be longer than others, depending on the content.
For example, here is another body paragraph from the same
essay:

41. A claim is what an author is arguing and what they wish the
reader to take away from an article. It is important to analyze a
claim because the claim will determine whether the arguments
are suitable for the article. Hernandez never explicitly states
what her claim is; she only alludes to it with examples. One can
assume her claim is that the SAT is not a fair indicator in
college admissions because she calls College Board “Hogwash”
because of their claim that “These exams provide a path to
opportunities, financial support and scholarships, in a way
that’s fair to all students” (Hernandez). Not having a clear claim
is unfair to the audience because they are not offered direction.
In fact, the article just feels longwinded and pointless. Further,
Hernandez fails to properly structure her article in a way that
benefits the audience. On the other hand, Lane’s article has a
very clear claim. Lane made the clearest statement about his
argument in the middle of the article by expressing, “On a more
fundamental level, the aspiration that the SAT embodies — to
express a student’s academic aptitude in a single number —
strikes me as a useful, indeed, a noble one.” His claim is that
the SAT’s purpose is to give students an impartial, unbiased
playing field in college admissions and scholarships.
Throughout the article, he acknowledges other factors that
should be indicated in college admissions and indicates that the
SAT and ACT are not perfect. One point he made to drive home
his claim was that while grades can be good indicators of work
ethic, different schools will have different curriculums,
programs, and resources. This is a valid statement between two
public schools in the same city; imagine the difference between
two schools across the country. Lane continued to reaffirm his
claim from beginning to end, something that Hernandez does
not do.
Write: Keeping all of the above in mind, it is now time to
construct all of the body paragraphs for your essay as according

42. to the format I have supplied. You are going to take your
freewriting analysis from the prior assignment, and you are
going to use it to help you create five to six body paragraphs on
the following parts of the article, in the following order: title,
claim, opposition, common ground, supporting evidence, and
experts/credibility, just as is laid out in the folder “Format for
Comparative Analysis Essay.”
Each of your body paragraphs should have all of the requisite
parts: They begin with a topic sentence that mentions what is
about to be analyzed, as well as why (in order to set up the
importance of what you are about to assess). What follows is a
statement about whether the first article does indeed have an
effective title, claim, statistics, etc.. After that, you state “In
contrast,” or “Comparatively, and bring up the next article and
whether it does something similar or different from the first
article. You provide examples or quotes from the article that
prove your point. Finally, you fully compare and contrast the
two articles. Finally, you have a conclusion sentence that
reiterates what you just said or further explains what you just
said.
Remember that you are not yet creating your introduction or
conclusion. You are simply writing the body paragraphs for
your essay.
Your end result should look like the following:
A title is a preview into what an article or story will tell you. A
successful title will grab the attention of the reader and should
provide some preview into what the article is about. The title
“Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test” is a very
interesting title and far more eye-catching than the Washington
Post’s article. The title suggests that there is something wrong
with the system of admissions that affects many students across

43. the country. According to the College Board, 1.7 million
students took the SAT in 2015. An article title that will change
the lives of that many students a year will definitely gain
traction and attention. The title also makes it clear what the
author’s claim and the entire article will be about. In contrast,
“In defense of the SAT test” is a much subtler title. While
searching articles on Google, I passed this article many times
because the title does not catch my attention, even though it has
one of the better arguments from those that I viewed. While a
stronger title like “The SAT Savior” would have been preferred,
I can understand why the author would choose to use a more
understated title. The title does clearly express the article’s
viewpoint and tell what the article will be about, but the title is
the polar opposite of the rest of the articles I viewed. Almost all
of the articles had extremely bold titles, so the author having a
weaker title separates it from the rest of the crowd. How
effective this technique actually was would depend on who is
searching for the article.
A claim is what an author is arguing and what they wish the
reader to take away from an article. It is important to analyze a
claim because the claim will determine whether the arguments
are suitable for the article. Hernandez never explici tly states
what her claim is; she only alludes to it with examples. One can
assume her claim is that the SAT is not a fair indicator in
college admissions because she calls College Board “Hogwash”
because of their claim that “These exams provide a path to
opportunities, financial support and scholarships, in a way
that’s fair to all students” (Hernandez). Not having a clear claim
is unfair to the audience because they are not offered direction.
In fact, the article just feels longwinded and pointless. Further,
Hernandez fails to properly structure her article in a way that
benefits the audience. On the other hand, Lane’s article has a
very clear claim. Lane made the clearest statement about his
argument in the middle of the article by expressing, “On a more
fundamental level, the aspiration that the SAT embodies — to
express a student’s academic aptitude in a single number —

44. strikes me as a useful, indeed, a noble one.” His claim is that
the SAT’s purpose is to give students an impartial, unbiased
playing field in college admissions and scholarships.
Throughout the article, he acknowledges other factors that
should be indicated in college admissions and indicates that the
SAT and ACT are not perfect. One point he made to drive home
his claim was that while grades can be good indicators of work
ethic, different schools will have different curriculums,
programs, and resources. This is a valid statement between two
public schools in the same city; imagine the difference between
two schools across the country. Lane continued to reaffirm his
claim from beginning to end, something that Hernandez does
not do.
The opposition is the other side of an argument. It is the views
and opinions that disagree with the claim that an author is
making. In order to change an opinion, both sides of a subject
should be presented, or else the argument will appear biased. In
her article, Hernandez failed to address the opposition;
therefore, her argument felt more like a rant than an argument.
Many teenagers and parents already feel that the SAT and ACT
are unfair and Hernandez ran away with that knowledge. She
complained in the article like she was a teenager herself without
explaining the benefits of the two tests at all. She made it seem
as if the SAT had no purpose at all. The closest thing Hernandez
does to address the other side of her argument is admitting the
benefit of the SAT Subject Tests and AP tests, but she does not
acknowledge that not all high schools offer AP classes or that
not all universities require or even accept SAT Subject Tests.
This harms her argument because it is not just for Hernandez to
convince the audience that the SAT is bad without supporting
her argument with statistics or examples that support this;
moreover, since the SAT is a test that gives results in numbers,
it would not be that difficult to find statistics or support to
address the other side. Hernandez simply chose not to do it.
Lane does the opposite in his article. He started his article by
addressing the common ground and the other side. He first

45. addresses the opposition when he proclaims, “Preparing for and
sitting through the SAT is a miserable experience (and an
expensive one, to boot), which many students just can’t master
for reasons having nothing to do with intellectual capability or
curiosity.” He mentions that the SAT is difficult for students do
well regardless of how smart they may actually be. This is
probably the most argued opinion in the discussion of
standardized tests. Many students feel that the SAT does not
cover information they were taught in school and that it is a test
that must be learned; hence, students do not perform as well on
the test as their grades may suggest they would. Lane combats
this argument in saying, “Yet SAT scores, for all their
limitations, contain some valid information,” and recognizing
other parts of an application are “by contrast, far more variable
and subjective.” He wants the audience to realize that the SAT
is the best way for colleges to even the playing field, indicating
that it is arguably the fairest part of college admission. This
makes sense because the test is the one thing that will not
change based on each student. The test itself is the most
objective thing that college admission officers get to see
because, unlike varying high schools or lives, the test is the
same.
The common ground of an article states something that both
sides can agree to. Similar to the opposing viewpoint, it is
important to analyze the common ground to determine whether
an author is biased. In “Save Our Teenagers,” Hernandez does
not properly address the common ground. The closest universal
statement delivered is: “Should colleges assume that brilliant
students simply hammer out triple 800s? I work with top SAT
scorers — many triple 800 students — and their stories are the
same: taking 10-15 full-length three-hour practice tests for two
years of intensive drilling” (Hernadez). This example attempts
to create a common ground because it shows that the SAT is
hard and it is difficult for students to achieve perfect scores , but
that is expected. This example fails at creating a common
ground because it simply iterates the purpose of tests in general.

46. The SAT is supposed to be difficult for even top students. If all
students that had 4.0 GPAs received perfect scores, this ar ticle
probably would proclaim the test should be harder. Since the
author does not say something truly important, the audience is
not united. Not establishing a true common ground has a
negative consequence on the article; for those people who
disagreed with the article to begin with, they have nothing to
make them trust the author of the article. Lane’s process of
addressing the common ground was completely different. He
spends the first four paragraphs creating a hypothetical
admissions test that was completely unbiased, fair, and an
amazing indicator of college success that he called TestPerfect
(Lane). Lane then tells the reader that TestPerfect does not exist
but asks “As long as access to higher education is a scarce
resource, for which students must compete, shouldn’t the
criteria of individual merit be as objective—as quantifiable—as
possible?” Almost everyone will agree the answer should be a
resounding “yes.” Millions of high school students across the
country worry about the SAT and getting into their dream
schools, and most people agree that more deserving students
should be granted admission. This is not a reality. Lane’s
recognition of this gets everyone reading on the same page. He
shows that college admissions are unfair and can be biased, so
he uses this to support his argument that the SAT makes college
admissions fairer than they would be without the test. This was
very important to his argument because without reminding
people that college admissions themselves are unfair and, later,
reminding the audience that the SAT was made to combat this,
people would not have changed their minds about his argument.
Credibility and experts are essential to an author’s argument.
Experts are people that have ample experience and knowledge
on a subject; thus, they can be trusted on the subject. It is
important to analyze experts so the audience can know if the
evidence they are being presented has merit. Both articles do a
good job of citing experts in different ways, but Hernandez does
a much more effective job. In Hernandez’s article, she is the

47. expert herself. To prove this, Hernandez declares, “I spent four
years working as an Assistant Director of Admissions at
Dartmouth College where I evaluated thousands of applicants
from around the world,” indicating that she has been immersed
in the realm of the SAT Test and college admission decisions
for many years. This is significant and the one part of the
argument where Hernandez has a true lead over Lane. Being
influential in the lives of hundreds of students by helping them
achieve their SAT score goals, counseling them during the
college application process, and being the person that decides
whether or not they were the best fit for the school of their
dreams is an expert on the SAT Test. Hernandez has insight into
the effects of the test. She’s seen firsthand the way students
study for the test and has rejected similar students from their
top school of choice from underperforming on the test. This
adds significant support to her argument and truly is the one
thing that makes her argument compelling. Lane does reference
some experts in his article. For example, he references George
Washington University, who recently changed their admissions
policy making the SAT and ACT tests optional. Using
universities such as George Washington University does show
that Lane is not biased and uses credible information, but the
information does not support his argument very much. In fact,
the inclusion of these examples in his article could sway the
audience in the opposite direction. People may think his point
was that more schools should offer test optional admissions
policies when that was not Lane’s point at all. He wanted the
audience to believe that these types of universities have
problems because of the test optional policies, but he does not
fully show that was what he meant. While doing this gave the
article credible sources, it may have taken away Lane’s
credibility if readers do not read closely.
Evidence is arguably the most important part of an essay. It is
the support that the author uses to justify his or her claim. Both
authors do a great job finding support for their claims. In
Hernandez’s article, she relied heavily on numbers and

48. statistics, while Lane focused more on history. In Hernandez’s
article, she claims, “Students from affluent areas spend $15,000
and up on SAT prep and top SAT tutors in New York command
$500-$1000 an hour.” This statements shows that the more
money you have, the better you can prepare for the SAT. She
shows that the SAT is not fair because people do not play fair.
A large part of her argument was centered around the SAT
being biased towards richer families because they can pay to
learn the test. This quote is great support for that; although,
without citing specific SAT tutors or test prep agencies, the
quote lacks complete credibility. Later she says, “The majority
of studies (like Stanford’s Bridge Report) agree that the best
predictor of college success is success in rigorous high school
classes, NOT SAT scores.” Hernandez named one of the most
prestigious institutions in the world during this statement:
Stanford University. Doing this shows the audience that even a
top university has done research with results that opposes the
SAT, but Hernandez doesn’t show the actual results of the study
or explain how it was conducted. This is a problem because it is
not fair to cite studies without explaining them. Lane uses
history in most of his argument. He explains how racism was
used against Jewish people during college admissions. He
explains how Ivy League Universities have not always been fair
in how they admit students. He acknowledges how holistic
review of applications has and will continue to create biases. He
does not use any statistics directly to support his argument,
other than a link to another article explaining the positive
effects of the SAT. Despite this, the support he used does work
well for the structure of his article and argument. His argument
is that the SAT makes college admission fairer, and he proved
this by showing examples of how this occurred. While more
statistics would have strengthened his argument, the examples
may work even better.
Writing an Analysis
Begin highlighting the article and making notes in the margins,

49. pointing out the following characteristics of argument and
commenting on each:
a.Title
•Does the title catch your attention? Why or why not?
•What would make it better, more effective?
b.Claim
•What is the writer’s claim?
•Is the claim appropriate?
•Does it set the articles in “motion” and lay the foundation for
the argument presented? Explain.
c.Statistics
•What percentages (%) are given?
•What ratios are presented?
•What numbers are given?
•What studies are mentioned/used?
•If any of the above are present in the article, then ask the
following questions:
•Where did the numbers come from?
•Who conducted the studies? Is this person “expert” enough to
conduct a study of this type? Why or why not?
•What is the name of the study or studies?
•Why was it conducted?
•Upon whom was the study conducted? What race? Gender?
Age? Where? Why? Are these people representative of the
diversity in our world, country, state, city, etc.? Why or why
not?
•What year were the studies conducted
•In what year did the numbers, percentages, etc. originate? Is
this current enough to use as valid information? Why or why
not?
d.Experts
•What are their names? They must be named.