In “Yes / No / Okay, But: Three Ways to Respond,” Graff and Birkenstein elaborate on the three proper ways to respond to ideas. While these ideas consist of agreeing, disagreeing, and/or a combination of both, an area of confusion arises when writers worry they will have to oversimplify their argument to fit these response forms. Graff and Berkenstein argue that it is, in fact, better to simplify one’s argument in order to allow readers to gain a strong understanding of your stance initially, then understand its details as they move through the writing. A unique way to disagree through this template is to agree with the evidence provided with a claim, but make a contrasting statement that causes said evidence to support your own claim. The two refer to this method as the “twist it.”
I found this chapter to be quite applicable to my own life because of the ACT’s essay section. Each ACT essay requires you to evaluate three stances on a topic and form your own while comparing it to those provided. I now have a better knowledge of how to compare others’ responses to my own going forward.
In “And Yet: Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say,” Graff and Birkenstein inform the reader of the significance of distinguishing others’ viewpoints from one’s own while using creative ways to rebuttal others’ claims. A unique assertion that these two make in the chapter is that writers can be more successful by using the first-person “I” or “we.” This is because when contrasting others’ viewpoints with one’s own, they are able to establish their own claim clearly so the reader can understand their argument and what they are arguing against. The authors point out that if writer’s didn’t do so, the summaries of others’ views can be confused in a mix with one’s own ideas throughout the paper.
I now understand that it is crucial to not only evaluate my own viewpoint, but to also clearly identify and explain the viewpoint(s) I am opposing.
In “Skeptics May Object: Planting a Naysayer in Your Text,” the Graff and Birkenstein signify that it is important to always identify and assess what critics will rebuttal your claims with in order to enhance your credibility. “When you entertain a counterargument, you make a kind of preemptive identifying problems with your argument before others can point them out for you.” They also state that doing so will allow writers to come across as “generous, broad-minded [people] who [are] confident enough to open themselves to debate.” By providing possible counterarguments to your own argument, you are proving you are well-educated on the issue at hand and are prepared to dispute with others respectably. But, it is important to evaluate and summarize others’ viewpoints fairly to avoid bias and misperception by yourself or readers.
This is significant to me because it puts me one step ahead of the game in academic writing. Thinking about possible counters to my argument will be beneficial so that I can not only establish them in my writing to appear as a better-educated individual regarding the issue, but also preemptively work around them and find their flaws.
In “So What? Who Cares?: Saying Why It Matters,” Graff and Birkenstein highlight that it is important to move on from the assumption that readers will understand why our claims matter and address their real-world implications upfront. They use New York Times writer Denise Grady’s report about recent fat call research to exemplify the importance of addressing previous claims and contectualize one’s argument into the larger conversation it is a part of. This is a key element in allowing readers to understand why what you say is important. She also involves the “so what?” factor by addressing statistics that indicate the severity of obesity and how widespread of a condition it is in our current society, using phrasing like “our increasingly obese world.”
I learned a useful method on addressing why my topic is important on a broader scale and applying it to the real world of the reader.
Ben's Blog 