Assignment 4

Assignment 4 Using the suggested pairings listed under “Preparation” (p. 48), write a 1,000- to 1,200-word comparison, using definition and summary.(use Topic:expertise) Preparation Choose ONE of the following pairs of readings from Academic Reading: 1) Topic: Expertise Bertin and Henifin’s “Science, Law, and the Search for Truth in the Courtroom: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow” (pp. 22–41) (there is a page missing in the Assignment 4 reading, and I put that page in an additional pdf file named”Assignment4 reading (1 page 36)”) AND Redding and Repucci’s “Effects of Lawyers’ Socio-political Attitudes on Their Judgments of Social Science in Legal Decision Making” (pp. 48–77) 2) Topic: Identity Cunningham’s “‘To Watch the Faces of the Poor’: Life Magazine and the Mythology of Rural Poverty in the Great Depression” (pp. 200–212) AND Delph-Janiurek’s “Sounding Gender(ed): Vocal Performances in English University Teaching Spaces” (pp. 258–280) 3) Topic: Systems of Association Sull’s “The Dynamics of Standing Still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the Radial Revolution” (pp. 351–382) AND Levi and Olson’s “The Battles in Seattle” (pp. 389–412) To bring these writers into conversation with each other, we’ve developed higher-level abstractions (topics) to construct the common ground (cumulative reasoning or consensual under¬standing) on which these writers meet. While some of these authors might actually use the terms we’ve developed here, others won’t. Your job is to discover what the information in these articles might suggest about the term/topic. As you begin to compare these writers’ articles, you will sort out how these topics can be refined. You will accomplish this refinement through an appositive structure and through a comparison that elaborates on and expands what you say in the appositive. So, this assignment will draw on the activity you did for the previous assignment (summarizing to define) by asking you to compare two sources in order to say something about the topic you’ve chosen. This time, you’ll be using definition to focus the topic, to guide your reader’s understanding of what he or she should pay attention to. Because your reasons for summarizing in this assignment will be different from your reasons for summarizing in previous assignments, . . . you won’t have to account for all the material in both articles—just the material that helps you to develop your topic. As you note-take, keep the following questions in mind: • What does this higher-level discussion suggest about expertise (or identity or systems of association)? • What does this example suggest about expertise (or identity or systems of association)? • What other phenomena is expertise (or identity or systems of association) associated with? • Under what conditions does expertise (or identity or systems of association) operate? • Are there variations among specific instances of expertise (or identity or systems of association)? What do these variations tell you about the phenomenon you’re looking at? If some of the discussion or examples in the articles you’re reading don’t tell you much about your particular topic, leave them alone. After you’ve taken notes for each article, sort out points of comparison (similarities and differences). As you begin comparing, you’ll notice important points of similarity and difference, points that will allow you to develop your definition and lay the ground work for the draft of your comparison. And you’ll probably find that as you refine your definition/focus/topic, you’ll abandon some of the similarities and differences you recorded in your notes. These won’t seem as relevant to your discussion as you begin to outline and draft.