The following are the additional commentaries discussed during office hours.
Initial Comments After Reading
Excellent start, Karen. It looks like you’re generating complex claims and engaging with concrete detail throughout this piece. I also believe you’ve produced an argument structure that contains a valid motive device. This motivating tension also informs the document structure, which makes for a logical and interesting arrangement of ideas. A few things I believe you should work on for the revision: 1. The introduction needs some attention. See the marginal note. 2. You might do a bit more to investigate paragraphing here. At times, you have opportunities to clarify paragraph’s meaning and to produce greater paragraph-level coherence. 3. I’m getting a bit turned around with your argument on pages 5 and 6. Let’s talk about those! * note that there are many more marginal notes to the left. Peruse those as you have time. We’ll discuss some in conference. Others are questions for you to consider on your own.
Plan for Revision after Office Hours
A potential new structure: *INTRODUCTION 1. here’s an ad [shared context] 2. it seems simple, bad representation [starting position] 3. but if we use a new way of thinking, it’s worth our attention [thesis] *EGGENER SUMMARY – here’s why we might be suspicious of regionalism SECTION 1: The ad is bad regionalism **SECTION 1a: The ad seems crappy….too simple *SECTION 1b: The ad is also kind of lying about the native-ness of the company *POWELL SUMMARY – But maybe the contents of the representation are not the only reason to value a piece of culture from CR perspective. *SECTION 2: The ad, seen from this perspective allows us to participate in interpreting what Detroit means/is. *CONCLUSION