HW 17- Outline Suggestions

Maggie-

Points on your paper according to where they appear:

Thesis: I think your thesis is clear and concise and you just need to tidy up the Carrie and Henry examples you put with it.

Argument 1: I like your argument here, it is something that I have seen you talk about before in other blogs so I know that you have more to say than what you put here. I think that you need to clarify your example here with Lauren, specify how you had the conversation and if it included anything else. And would talking about how the conversation or other conversations on AIM and Facebook are always casual contradict the statement because it's a deeper topic? Also, you stray a bit too much for one argument, you range from AIM to Facebook to photos and other features of these sites, you should focus instead on just AIM and Facebook, if not just one.

Argument 2: I like how you start off by talking about the interview we did earlier in the unit, but I think that you should do more than just say (Interview) when you refer to it, because not everybody will understand the context. You do however stray quite far away from the main topic you start the paragraph with, that computers are efficient. You can still use most of your examples here, but you need to connect them back to the main point otherwise it makes them seem like random ramblings on technology. You should also do this when connecting to Feed, show the parallels between the book and our world so that it is clear what you are trying to get the reader to think about.

Argument 3: I really like the way you proposed your idea here through the examples provided. I think that all of these examples are relevant and could use a little expansion or connection to really make it work. You spend twice as much time developing Wall-E as any of your other examples, and they falter a bit as a result.

Conclusion: I think this is a fine conclusion, but you can fluff it out a bit to make it sound a bit more approachable and appealing to accept.

Overall: I think that you have a lot of great ideas here in your outline and I am genuinely interested in what you have to say in these postings that will come up. I think that in order for these to become really relevant and exciting you really need to smooth things together more so that it has flow. The way you currently propose your points is very "blurty", by this I mean you just throw stuff out there but there is no flow. If you can both expand on your points and get them to flow together more you will have a tremendous paper that everybody should read.