ACADEMIC ENGLISH IIINovember 28th 2012

Today• Review last class (TAXES + DUCTT)

• Referencing

Make-up ClassNext Tuesday 4:30 – 5:30

Location: Here.

Come prepared with any questions you would like to ask about writing.

TAXEST

A

X

E

S

opic sentence

ssertion (Statements that present your idea)

E amples (specific passage, facts, stats, details)

xplanation (commentary that shows how the examples support your assertion).

ignificance (commentary that shows how the paragraph supports the thesis statement).

This acronym gives you a formula for building body paragraphs.

Thesis statementSimply put, the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties; in reality, the Act exposes Americans to potential abuses of power by creating an environment that encourages government corruption, secrecy, fraud and discrimination while using “national security” as a pretense for violating basic Constitutional rights like privacy and free speech. As the century drags on, it is becoming painfully obvious that the Patriot Act has actually moved the United States further away from an ideal democratic society since its passage in October of 2001.

Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an

independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of

the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the

unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of

their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An

overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly

discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—

its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal

government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be

the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its

enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk

of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of

the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to

the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in

the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some

of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that

took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for

a sense of security.

Paragraph 3

Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an

independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of

the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the

unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of

their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An

overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly

discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—

its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal

government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be

the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its

enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk

of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of

the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to

the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in

the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some

of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that

took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for

a sense of security.

Topic sentence

Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an

independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of

the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the

unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of

their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An

overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly

discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—

its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal

government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be

the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its

enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk

of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of

the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to

the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in

the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some

of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that

took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for

a sense of security.

Assertion

Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an

independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of

the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the

unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of

their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An

overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly

discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%

—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal

government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be

the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its

enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk

of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of

the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to

the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in

the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some

of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that

took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for

a sense of security.

eXamples

Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an

independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of

the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the

unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of

their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An

overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly

discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—

its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal

government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be

the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its

enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk

of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of

the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to

the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in

the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some

of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that

took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for

a sense of security.

Explanation + Significance

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the

government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant

and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a

crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to

conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever

questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is

crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more

recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a

search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by

the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only

rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation

(“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American

citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Paragraph 5

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates

the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally,

the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant

and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a

crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to

conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned

about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to

national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years

the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI

must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally,

this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However,

in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out

of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI

decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so,

even without sufficient evidence.

Topic sentence

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power.

Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining

a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may

commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the

government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is

ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is

crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more

recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a

search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

(FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the

Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected

six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”).

This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most

likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Assertion

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the

government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant

and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a

crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to

conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever

questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is

crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more

recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a

search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by

the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only

rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation

(“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American

citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

eXamples

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the

government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant

and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a

crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to

conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned

about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to

national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years

the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI

must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally,

this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However,

in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out

of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the

FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to

do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Explanation + Significance

DUCTTD

U

C

T

T

evelopment

nity

oherence

ransitions

opic sentence

This acronym will remind you to put these features into your body paragraphs.

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the

government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant

and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a

crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to

conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever

questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is

crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more

recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a

search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by

the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only

rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation

(“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American

citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Paragraph 5

Thesis statementSimply put, the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties; in reality, the Act exposes Americans to potential abuses of power by creating an environment that encourages government corruption, secrecy, fraud and discrimination while using “national security” as a pretense for violating basic Constitutional rights like privacy and free speech. As the century drags on, it is becoming painfully obvious that the Patriot Act has actually moved the United States further away from an ideal democratic society since its passage in October of 2001.

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally,

the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a

warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may

commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the

government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is

ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation

is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In

more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before

conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power

granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA

court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s

creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain

American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Development

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the

government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant

and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a

crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to

conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever

questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is

crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more

recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a

search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by

the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only

rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation

(“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American

citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Unity

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally,

the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a

warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may

commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the

government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is

ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation

is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In

more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before

conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power

granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA

court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s

creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain

American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Coherence + Transitions

 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the

fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the

government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant

and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a

crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to

conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever

questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is

crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more

recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a

search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by

the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only

rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation

(“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American

citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

Topic Sentence

Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012)

Giving references can be confusing.

Knowing HOW to reference can be more confusing.

i.e.,

1. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. According to the Department of Transportation report from last year, there were over 16,000 accidents in Daegu alone last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both.

2. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. In Daegu alone, there were over 16,000 accidents last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both.

Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012)

1. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. According to the Department of Transportation report from last year, there were over 16,000 accidents in Daegu alone last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both.

2. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. In Daegu alone, there were over 16,000 accidents last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both.

- In fact, both of these are acceptable.

This is a statistic, so indicating in the text WHOSE statistic it is can add strength to the point. 1.

On the other hand, the citation is often enough. 2

Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012)

1. The cause of this extremely high number of traffic accidents is most likely the city’s road system. In his book, which is called Crazy City, Crazy Roads, Manti Golsen concludes that the roads in Daegu are too narrow, which causes cars to collide at a higher rate than in other cities (Golsen, 2012).

2. The cause of this extremely high number of traffic accidents is most likely the city’s road system. Daegu’s roads are too narrow, causing cars to collide at a higher rate than in other cities (Golsen, 2012).

- Again, both are acceptable, BUT…

…It is not necessary to give a full listing of the author’s name and book title. It takes up a lot more text. 2 is better for simplicity and clarity.

Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012)

1. The food in the Gyeongbuk region is another reason people are moving away. Research has found that food in this part of Korea is too spicy for most people. The Spicy Food Information Organization (SPFIO) indicates that “food in Gyeongbuk has a spice rating of 9.5, which is 2 points over the national average of 7.5” (SPFIO, 2011: 9).With such a high spice rating, it appears difficult for people to regularly eat the food in the Gyeongbuk region.

2. The food in the Gyeongbuk region is another reason people are moving away. Research has found that food in this part of Korea is too spicy for most people, with food in this region having “a spice rating of 9.5, which is 2 points over the national average of 7.5”(SPFIO, 2011: 9).With such a high spice rating, it appears difficult for people to regularly eat the food in the Gyeongbuk region.

These examples demonstrate two things:

- Full quote vs. a partial quote. - Mentioning the source in the text vs. just giving a citation.

Which form you choose depends on how important you feel the source is.

The first stage of the meditative process focuses on the event itself as opposed to scripture, which for Milton problematizes memory.  Further, evidence suggests that Milton understood exactly what it meant to retreat, Ignatian-style, into the inner self for private imaginings:  “It is better therefore to contemplate the Deity, and to conceive of him, not with reference to human passions, that is, after the manner of men, who are never weary of forming subtle imaginations respecting him,  but  after the manner of Scripture, that is, in the way wherein God  has  offered himself  to our contemplation; . . .” (CE xiv. 33).

- This quote is longer than 4 lines.

- Formatting changes in this case.

Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012)

• The first stage of the meditative process focuses on the event itself as opposed to scripture, which for Miltonproblematizes memory. Further, evidence suggests that Milton understood exactly what it meant to retreat, Ignatian-style, into the inner self for private imaginings:

            It is better therefore to contemplate the Deity, and to conceive of him, not with reference to human passions, that is, after the manner of men, who are never weary of forming subtle imaginations respecting him, but after the manner of Scripture, that is, in the way wherein God has offered himself to our contemplation; . . . (CE xiv. 33).

If a quote is longer than 4 lines:

- Indent (on both sides) and remove the quotation marks.

Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012)

Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012)

General tips for referencing:

- If you can paraphrase instead of quoting (especially longer passages), do it.

- Make sure that the reference actually fits into what you are saying.

- Aim for simplicity in your writing (you don’t have to list the author(s)’s full name(s) and the title of the book when you reference it. Often, the citation will be enough. Interested readers can check your references section for more information.

Thesis statement:

Ice cream is a dangerous food in many ways.

Topic sentence: The crime rate increases when ice cream is popular.

Assertion:

Example/support: crime rate increases by 15% in summer compared to winter.

Commentary/significance:

Thesis :Ice cream is a dangerous food in many ways. 

The crime rate increases when ice cream is popular. Ice cream’s popularity during

the summer months leads people to steal ice cream so they can sell it at a higher price on the

black market. During the fall and winter months, the crime rate stands at 100 crimes per

10,000 people. However, as the weather turns warmer, and summer approaches, this rate

increases to 115 crimes per 10,000 people, an increase of 15% compared to the winter crime

rate. While most types of crimes see no significant seasonal differences, theft is an exception.

More specifically, it is the theft of ice cream that is responsible for this increased crime rate.

Ice cream is the only item that has a rate of theft that varies with the season; decreasing in

the winter and increasing in the summer. Because ice cream is so popular in the summer, the

demand for ice cream reaches a high point, which inspires thieves looking for quick money to

steal ice cream, which they then sell on the ice cream black market at a mark-up of 50%. This

makes life dangerous for ice cream delivery men, who are constantly attacked by would-be

thieves looking to steal the ice cream in their trucks. Clearly, ice cream’s effect on crime rate

demonstrates the danger this food poses.

Example