Essay Options for Deep Work:
Choose One
Option #1
In a 1,000-word essay, defend, refute, or complicate Cal Newport's argument that Deep Work is an invaluable asset to your personal and professional life while Shallow Work and the mindless Internet habits that accompany it is a liability that results in mediocrity and nihilistic despair.
Option #2
In a 1,000-word essay, write a persuasive essay to someone you know who is shackled to mindless social media habits that they must replace their Internet addiction by radically transforming their brain hardwiring, which could only be accomplished through the habits of Deep Work.
For both options, you must have 3 sources. You can use the book, and 2 sources from Cal Newport's Study Hack website.
Typical Essay Structure for an Argument
One. Introduction
Two. Claim (also called a thesis) with mapping components
Three. Supports otherwise known as mapping components
Four. Counterargument-Rebuttal (usually 1 or 2 in a 1,000-1,200-word essay)
Five. Conclusion: Dramatic restatement of your claim
Six. Works Cited with credible sources.
Sample Thesis #1
Cal Newport's book Deep Work is a life-saving masterpiece that has slapped me in the face and made me stare into the mirror and confront my wasted time on my smartphone, it has diagnosed the insidious ways I do busy work to placate my conscience and thereby encourage my own proclivity for mediocrity, it has diagnosed the stifling work environments that breed complacency and mundane work, and has given me strategies to help me dig myself out of my shallow-work grave.
Sample Thesis #2
Cal Newport's book Deep Work is a work of pompous propaganda designed to scold us for spending too much time on our technology when in fact that time might be in our best self-interests, designed to make us feel like losers if we're better suited for shallow work than deep work, designed to impose a rigid system of deep work that doesn't work for all personality types, and designed to present an over simplistic representation of that which is supposed to be "deep work" and that which is supposed to be "shallow work" when in fact the dividing line is not as clear as Newport would have us believe.
Study Questions
One. What is the Principle of Least Resistance?
Shallow Work is easier.
Shallow Work creates the illusion of hard work.
Too many corporate environments scatter-brain their employees by making them do a lot of shallow work. Why? Because of the Principle of Least Resistance:
Without clear feedback on how shallow work affects the bottom line, companies surrender to a shallow work environment, not because it’s most effective, but because it’s the easiest of all available options.
Additionally, getting a quick response creates the illusion of productivity. “Constant connectivity” creates the illusion of professionalism and efficiency. “Constant connectivity” is an example of an Easy Stupid Thing.
Another Easy Stupid Thing is forwarding emails. It’s super easy to forward an email to everyone in your office, but then you make them sweat and labor over your half-baked thought for hours while you did nothing. These half-baked forwarded emails ruin productivity, but they are easy to do.
As a corollary, we can postulate that on a personal level we do the same thing with social media, allowing the smartphone to be the slow-opium drip machine hooked up to our brain: We don’t question the damage this does to our personal and professional life. We simply “fall” into it because it’s easy, peer pressure dictates a certain conformity, and social media brands itself effectively as a way of being hip, now, sexy, and successful when in fact it’s a complete lie.
Another seduction of shallow work is that we think we’re productive when we’re busy, but we’re not. We can be “human routers” of busy work, but not producing high-quality deep work.
Newport warns us to not let busyness be a proxy for deep work.
Another seduction of busyness that can drain our capacity to deep work and suck us into shallow work is the grand lure of “having an internet presence” on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
While such a presence may be important for a lot of people, too many people find these social media presences a “time suck” that takes away from deep work.
Review of Easy Stupid Things:
Just because something is easy does not mean it is efficient, productive, or serve our self-interests in any way.
Just because we're in a routine with relatively low conflict does not mean that this routine is our best self-interests. Think of brain-dead jobs or brain-dead relationships.
Just because your technology makes "connecting" easy doesn't mean you're being benefitted or enhanced in any way.
Just because something is easy like forwarding email doesn't mean it's productive; it could be busy work creating the facade of productivity.
Example: My daughters get a lot of homework that is worthless busy work. It's supposed to appease parents, but this busy work annoys me.
Fear of Being Invisible and Irrelevant in the Technopoly
We get sucked into the shallow work of having a social media presence (and constantly responding to comments and messages) because in the technopoly, the blind worship of technology for its own sake, we fear that not having an internet presence will render us invisible and irrelevant.
This constant pull to social media traps us in shallow work. We can never surrender to singular focus because we are addicted to social media. Addiction comes from the word slave.
Two. What profound purpose is Cal Newport trying to achieve in his book?
Newport is trying to show us that a life hooked to social media, internet, and the technopoly is one of fragmentation, scatter-brained disorientation, soulless mediocrity, depression, shallow work and emptiness.
In contrast, a life of deep work in the service of becoming a master craftsman results in the personal distinction that is valued by others, performance of high-quality work that cannot be easily replicated by others, deep satisfaction, and deep meaning in both one’s personal and professional life.
It’s like the difference between heaven and hell.
Focus, Not Desirable Circumstances, Lead to Happiness
Referring to the wisdom he finds in Winifred Gallagher’s book Rapt, Newport makes the point that a life of focus, not desirable circumstances, lead to happiness.
Focus helps unify our thoughts and makes us feel whole, complete, and happy.
The opposite is also true then: Attention-fragmentation makes us feel scattered, incomplete, empty and depressed. This emptiness and depression can afflict us even in the most desirable circumstances imaginable.
He quotes Gallagher:
“Who you are, what you think, feel, and do, what you love—is the sum of what you focus on.”
If you love “sharing” on social media photos of your fish tacos from Rubio’s or your bread sticks from Olive Garden and in general your “happy” life with your friends at restaurants, then that’s you who are. But remember that your focus is shallow; therefore, you’re not experiencing meaning and happiness.
If you focus on honing your craft at the piano, or singing, dancing, acting, math, or architecture, to give a few examples, your mastering your craft and your focus and you will be happier than if you’re constantly “sharing” and doing shallow work.
Deep Work Equals Happiness
Citing the psychological studies of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on happiness, Newport quotes the researcher:
“The best moments usually occur when a person’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile.”
The above quote is an excellent reiteration of what it means to do deep work, and it leads to happiness no less.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi concludes that life is easier when we’re focused on deep work than when we’re lollygagging through free time. Deep work causes intense happiness called “flow.”
Piddling away several minutes or hours in a waiting room or on an airplane or in a classroom is a form of misery, yet we’ve been manipulated into believing by the social media industry that we’re having “fun.”
When we’re plugged into the slow-drip opium drug of our smartphone, we’re in hell, but we’re in denial of this fact.
Philosophical Argument for Deep Work
For centuries, educated humans knew there were two kinds of time: sacred and profane time and the two time zones should never mix.
A caveman telling a fable about the meaning of life to other cavemen around the campfire would be in sacred time.
A man and a woman contemplating the idea of spending the rest of their life with each other are in sacred time.
The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a story about sacred time.
The story of Adam and Eve being expelled from Paradise is a story about leaving sacred time and entering profane time.
Listening to music at a concert is entering sacred time.
Watching a movie is entering sacred time.
Walking along the beach with your children and pointing at the waves is sacred time.
Sitting at the table with your family and discussing how your daughter spoke her first words is sacred time.
Getting a speeding ticket from a cop is profane time.
Playing a computer game is profane time.
Chatting on social media is profane time.
Doing deep work and improving your craft so that you can be a master of what you do is entering sacred time.
We Are Elevated as Human Beings When We Keep Sacred and Profane Time Separated
But in the technopoly, we’ve worshipped technology above all else and we’ve lost sight of the very notion of sacred time.
We live in profane time, shallow work, and rude interruptions of sacred events. People text inside churches and at funerals.
People take selfies at concerts.
Deep Work is a return to sacred time.
Shallow Work is to live in profane time and suffer the nihilism of a shallow, empty, meaningless existence.
Newport’s Conclusion
We don’t become happy because we find some amazing “rarified” job. We become happy because we establish a “rarified approach” to our work. We value the sacred time of deep work and find meaning from becoming master craftsmen.
We transform from Opium-Drip Smartphone Zombies to “Homo Sapiens Deepensis.”
Six Ways to Improve Your Argumentation
Applying your critical thinking to academic writing
You will find that your task as a writer at the higher levels of critical thinking is to argue.
You will express your argument in 6 ways:
One. Define a Situation That Calls for a Response
One. You will define a situation that calls for some response in writing by asking critical questions. For example, is the reversal of DACA an act of political cowardice and a form of punishing innocent people or is it upholding the law?
Here is what my friend and officemate wrote on Facebook this morning in response to the end of DACA:
I woke this morning to learn that 800,000 Americans will be losing their jobs, their security, their peace of mind, and very possibly their family, their homes, and their homeland -- in short, all that makes life worth living. It rather boggles my mind that anything is being posted this morning that's not on the subject of this heinous and catastrophic act of aggression.
I have personally assisted countless young students and hard workers to take that giant step toward being accepted in this country, only now to see their dreams go down in flames. Each one of them is its own self-contained and individualized tragedy of mammoth proportions.
The decision taken this morning is an affront to decency, humanity, fair-mindedness, compassion, inclusiveness, tolerance, and justice. It was driven by racism, selfishness, stupidity, and callousness -- motivated solely by a desire to pander to the whims of illiterate, inbred, dirt-eating Nazi knockoffs for the purposes of reelection.
Another example
Is the Confederate flag a symbol of honor and respect for the heritage of white people in the South? Or is the flag a symbol of racial hatred, slavery, and Jim Crow?
Two. You will demonstrate the timeliness of your argument. In other words, why is your argument relevant?
Why is it relevant for example to address the decision of many parents to NOT vaccinate their children?
Three. Establish your personal investment in the topic. Why do you care about the topic you’re writing about?
You may be alarmed to see exponential increases in college costs and this is personal because you have children who will presumably go to college someday.
Four. Appeal to your readers by anticipating their thoughts, beliefs, and values, especially as they pertain to the topic you are writing about. You may be arguing a vegetarian diet to people who are predisposed to believing that vegetarian eating is a hideous exercise in self-denial and amounts to torture.
You may have to allay their doubts by making them delicious vegetarian foods or by convincing them that they can make such meals.
You may be arguing against the NFL to those who defend it on the basis of the relatively high salaries NFL players make. Do you have an answer to that?
Five. Support your argument with solid reasons and compelling evidence. If you're going to make the claim that the NFL is morally repugnant, can you support that? How?
Six. Anticipate your readers’ reasons for disagreeing with your position and try to change their mind so they “see things your way.” We call this “making the readers drink your Kool-Aid.”
Being a Critical Reader Means Being an Active Reader
To be an active reader we must ask the following when we read a text:
One. What is the author’s thesis or purpose?
Two. What arguments is the author responding to?
Three. Is the issue relevant or significant? If not, why?
Four. How do I know that what the author says is true or credible? If not, why?
Five. Is the author’s evidence legitimate? Sufficient? Why or why not?
Six. Do I have legitimate opposition to the author’s argument?
Seven. What are some counterarguments to the author’s position?
Eight. Has the author addressed the most compelling counterarguments?
Nine. Is the author searching for truth or is the author beholden to an agenda, political, business, lobby, or something else?
Ten. Is the author’s position compromised by the use of logical fallacies such as either/or, Straw Man, ad hominem, non sequitur, confusing causality with correlation, etc.?
Eleven. Has the author used effective rhetorical strategies to be persuasive? Rhetorical strategies in the most general sense include ethos (credibility), logos (clear logic), and pathos (appealing to emotion). Another rhetorical strategy is the use of biting satire when one wants to mercilessly attack a target.
Twelve. You should write in the margins of your text (annotate) to address the above questions. Using annotations increases your memory and reading comprehension far beyond passive reading. And research shows annotating while reading is far superior to using a highlighter, which is mostly a useless exercise.
An annotation can be very brief. Here are some I use:
?
Wrong
Confusing
Thesis
Proof 1
Counterargument
Good point
Genius
Lame
BS
Cliché
Condescending
Full of himself
Contradiction!
Evaluate Sources to Determine Their Credibility
Two. How do we generate ideas for an essay?
We begin by not worrying about being critical. We brainstorm a huge list of ideas and then when the list is complete, we undergo the process of evaluation.
Sample Topic for an Essay: Parents Who Don’t Immunize Their Children
- Most parents who don’t immunize their children are educated and upper class.
- They read on the Internet that immunizations lead to autism or other health problems.
- They follow some “natural guru” who warns that vaccines aren’t organic and pose health risks.
- They panic over anecdotal evidence that shows vaccines are dangerous.
- They confuse correlation with causality.
- Why are these parents always rich?
- Are they narcissists?
- Are they looking for simple answers for complex problems?
- Would they not stand in line for the Ebola vaccine, if it existed?
- These parents are endangering others by not getting the vaccine.
Types of Claim or Thesis
Thesis that is a claim of cause and effect:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children tend to be narcissistic people of privilege who believe their sources of information are superior to “the mainstream media”; who are looking for simple explanations that might protect their children from autism; who are confusing correlation with causality; and who are benefiting from the very vaccinations they refuse to give their children.
Thesis that is a claim of argumentation:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be prosecuted by the law because they are endangering the public and they are relying on pseudo-intellectual science to base their decisions.
To test a thesis, we must always ask: “What might be objections to my claim?”
Prosecuting parents will only give those parents more reason to be paranoid that the government is conspiring against them.
There are less severe ways to get parents to comply with the need to vaccinate their children.
Generating Ideas for Our Essays
How do we prepare our minds so we have “Eureka” (I found it) moments and apply these moments to our writing?
The word eureka comes from the Greek heuristic, a method or process for discovering ideas. The principle posits that one thought triggers another.
Diverse and conflicting opinions in a classroom are a heuristic tool for generating thoughts.
Here’s an example:
One student says, “Fat people should pay a fat tax because they incur more medical costs than non-fat people.”
Another student says, “Wrong. Fat people die at a far younger age. It’s people who live past seventy, non-fat people, who put a bigger drain on medical costs. In fact, smokers and fat people, by dying young, save us money.”
Another heuristic method is breaking down the subject into classical topics:
Definition: What is it? Jealousy is a form of insanity in which a morally bankrupt person assumes his partner is as morally bankrupt as he is.
Comparison: What is it like or unlike? Compared to the risk of us dying from global warming, death from a terrorist attack is relatively miniscule.
Relationship: What caused it, and what will it cause? The chief cause of our shrinking brain and its concomitant reduced attention span is gadget screen time.
Testimony: What is said about it by experts? Social scientists explain that the United States’ mass incarceration of poor people actually increases the crime rate.
Another heuristic method is finding a controversial topic and writing a list of pros and cons.
Consider the topic, “Should I become a vegan?”
Here are some pros:
- I’ll focus on eating healthier foods.
- I won’t be eating as many foods potentially contaminated by E.coli and Salmonella.
- I won’t be contributing as much to the suffering of sentient creatures.
- I won’t be contributing as much to greenhouse gasses.
- I’ll be eating less cholesterol and saturated fats.
Cons
- It’s debatable that a vegan diet is healthier than a Paleo (heavy meat eating) diet.
- Relying on soy is bad for the body.
- My body craves animal protein.
- Being a vegan will ostracize me from my family and friends.
One. Checklist for Critical Thinking
My attitude toward critical thinking:
Does my thinking show imaginative open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity? Or do I exist in a circular, self-feeding, insular brain loop resulting in solipsism? The latter is also called living in the echo chamber.
Am I willing to honestly examine my assumptions?
Am I willing to entertain new ideas—both those that I encounter while reading and those that come to mind while writing?
Am I willing to approach a debatable topic by using dialectical argument, going back and forth between opposing views?
Am I willing to exert myself—for instance, to do research—to acquire information and to evaluate evidence?
My skills to develop critical thinking
Can I summarize an argument accurately?
Can I evaluate assumptions, evidence, and inferences?
Can I present my ideas effectively—for instance, by organizing and by writing in a manner appropriate to my imagined audience?
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
Critical Writing
Applying your critical thinking to academic writing
You will find that your task as a writer at the higher levels of critical thinking is to argue.
You will express your argument in 6 ways:
One. You will define a situation that calls for some response in writing by asking critical questions. For example, is the Confederate flag a symbol of honor and respect for the heritage of white people in the South? Or is the flag a symbol of racial hatred, slavery, and Jim Crow?
Two. You will demonstrate the timeliness of your argument. In other words, why is your argument relevant?
Why is it relevant for example to address the decision of many parents to NOT vaccinate their children?
Three. Establish your personal investment in the topic. Why do you care about the topic you’re writing about?
You may be alarmed to see exponential increases in college costs and this is personal because you have children who will presumably go to college someday.
Four. Appeal to your readers by anticipating their thoughts, beliefs, and values, especially as they pertain to the topic you are writing about. You may be arguing a vegetarian diet to people who are predisposed to believing that vegetarian eating is a hideous exercise in self-denial and amounts to torture.
You may have to allay their doubts by making them delicious vegetarian foods or by convincing them that they can make such meals.
You may be arguing against the NFL to those who defend it on the basis of the relatively high salaries NFL players make. Do you have an answer to that?
Five. Support your argument with solid reasons and compelling evidence. If you're going to make the claim that the NFL is morally repugnant, can you support that? How?
Six. Anticipate your readers’ reasons for disagreeing with your position and try to change their mind so they “see things your way.” We call this “making the readers drink your Kool-Aid.”
Being a Critical Reader Means Being an Active Reader
To be an active reader we must ask the following when we read a text:
One. What is the author’s thesis or purpose?
Two. What arguments is the author responding to?
Three. Is the issue relevant or significant? If not, why?
Four. How do I know that what the author says is true or credible? If not, why?
Five. Is the author’s evidence legitimate? Sufficient? Why or why not?
Six. Do I have legitimate opposition to the author’s argument?
Seven. What are some counterarguments to the author’s position?
Eight. Has the author addressed the most compelling counterarguments?
Nine. Is the author searching for truth or is the author beholden to an agenda, political, business, lobby, or something else?
Ten. Is the author’s position compromised by the use of logical fallacies such as either/or, Straw Man, ad hominem, nonsequitur, confusing causality with correlation, etc.?
Eleven. Has the author used effective rhetorical strategies to be persuasive? Rhetorical strategies in the most general sense include ethos (credibility), logos (clear logic), and pathos (appealing to emotion). Another rhetorical strategy is the use of biting satire when one wants to mercilessly attack a target.
Twelve. You should write in the margins of your text (annotate) to address the above questions. Using annotations increases your memory and reading comprehension far beyond passive reading. And research shows annotating while reading is far superior to using a highlighter, which is mostly a useless exercise.
An annotation can be very brief. Here are some I use:
?
Wrong
Confusing
Thesis
Proof 1
Counterargument
Good point
Genius
Lame
BS
Cliché
Condescending
Full of himself
Contradiction!
Two. How do we generate ideas for an essay?
We begin by not worrying about being critical. We brainstorm a huge list of ideas and then when the list is complete, we undergo the process of evaluation.
Sample Topic for an Essay: Parents Who Don’t Immunize Their Children
- Most parents who don’t immunize their children are educated and upper class.
- They read on the Internet that immunizations lead to autism or other health problems.
- They follow some “natural guru” who warns that vaccines aren’t organic and pose health risks.
- They panic over anecdotal evidence that shows vaccines are dangerous.
- They confuse correlation with causality.
- Why are these parents always rich?
- Are they narcissists?
- Are they looking for simple answers to complex problems?
- Would they not stand in line for the Ebola vaccine, if it existed?
- These parents are endangering others by not getting the vaccine.
Thesis that is a claim of cause and effect:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children tend to be narcissistic people of privilege who believe their sources of information are superior to “the mainstream media”; who are looking for simple explanations that might protect their children from autism; who are confusing correlation with causality; and who are benefiting from the very vaccinations they refuse to give their children.
Thesis that is a claim of argumentation:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be prosecuted by the law because they are endangering the public and they are relying on pseudo-intellectual science to base their decisions.
To test a thesis, we must always ask: “What might be objections to my claim?”
Prosecuting parents will only give those parents more reason to be paranoid that the government is conspiring against them.
There are less severe ways to get parents to comply with the need to vaccinate their children.
Generating Ideas for Our Essays
How do we prepare our minds so we have “Eureka” (I found it) moments and apply these moments to our writing?
The word eureka comes from the Greek heuristic, a method or process for discovering ideas. The principle posits that one thought triggers another.
Diverse and conflicting opinions in a classroom are a heuristic tool for generating thoughts.
Here’s an example:
One student says, “Fat people should pay a fat tax because they incur more medical costs than non-fat people.”
Another student says, “Wrong. Fat people die at a far younger age. It’s people who live past seventy, non-fat people, who put a bigger drain on medical costs. In fact, smokers and fat people, by dying young, save us money.”
Another heuristic method is breaking down the subject into classical topics:
Definition: What is it? Jealousy is a form of insanity in which a morally bankrupt person assumes his partner is as morally bankrupt as he is.
Comparison: What is it like or unlike? Compared to the risk of us dying from global warming, death from a terrorist attack is relatively minuscule.
Relationship: What caused it, and what will it cause? The chief cause of our shrinking brain and its concomitant reduced attention span is gadget screen time.
Testimony: What is said about it by experts? Social scientists explain that the United States’ mass incarceration of poor people actually increases the crime rate.
Another heuristic method is finding a controversial topic and writing a list of pros and cons.
Consider the topic, “Should I become a vegan?”
Here are some pros:
- I’ll focus on eating healthier foods.
- I won’t be eating as many foods potentially contaminated by E.coli and Salmonella.
- I won’t be contributing as much to the suffering of sentient creatures.
- I won’t be contributing as much to greenhouse gasses.
- I’ll be eating less cholesterol and saturated fats.
Cons
- It’s debatable that a vegan diet is healthier than a Paleo (heavy meat eating) diet.
- Relying on soy is bad for the body.
- My body craves animal protein.
- Being a vegan will ostracize me from my family and friends.
One. Checklist for Critical Thinking
My attitude toward critical thinking:
Does my thinking show imaginative open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity? Or do I exist in a circular, self-feeding, insular brain loop resulting in solipsism? The latter is also called living in the echo chamber.
Am I willing to honestly examine my assumptions?
Am I willing to entertain new ideas—both those that I encounter while reading and those that come to mind while writing?
Am I willing to approach a debatable topic by using dialectical argument, going back and forth between opposing views?
Am I willing to exert myself—for instance, to do research—to acquire information and to evaluate evidence?
My skills to develop critical thinking
Can I summarize an argument accurately?
Can I evaluate assumptions, evidence, and inferences?
Can I present my ideas effectively—for instance, by organizing and by writing in a manner appropriate to my imagined audience?
Study the Templates of Argumentation
While the author’s arguments for meaning are convincing, she fails to consider . . .
While the authors' supports make convincing arguments, they must also consider . . .
These arguments, rather than being convincing, instead prove . . .
While these authors agree with Writer A on point X, in my opinion . . .
Although it is often true that . . .
While I concede that my opponents make a compelling case for point X, their main argument collapses underneath a barrage of . . .
While I see many good points in my opponent’s essay, I am underwhelmed by his . . .
While my opponent makes some cogent points regarding A, B, and C, his overall argument fails to convince when we consider X, Y, and Z.
My opponent makes many provocative and intriguing points. However, his arguments must be dismissed as fallacious when we take into account W, X, Y, and Z.
While the author’s points first appear glib and fatuous, a closer look at his polemic reveals a convincing argument that . . .
Ways to Improve Your Critical Reading
- Do a background check of the author to see if he or she has a hidden agenda or any other kind of background information that speaks to the author’s credibility.
- Check the place of publication to see what kind of agenda, if any, the publishing house has. Know how esteemed the publishing house is among peers of the subject you’re reading about.
- Learn how to find the thesis. In other words, know what the author’s purpose, explicit or implicit, is.
- Annotate more than underline. Your memory will be better served, according to research, by annotating than underlining. You can scribble your own code in the margins as long as you can understand your writing when you come back to it later. Annotating is a way of starting a dialogue about the reading and writing process. It is a form of pre-writing. Forms of annotation that I use are “yes,” (great point) “no,” (wrong, illogical, BS) and “?” (confusing). When I find the thesis, I’ll also write that in the margins. Or I’ll write down an essay or book title that the passage reminds me of. Or maybe even an idea for a story or a novel.
- When faced with a difficult text, you will have to slow down and use the principles of summarizing and paraphrasing. With summary, you concisely identify the main points in one or two sentences. With paraphrase, you re-word the text in your own words.
- When reading an argument, see if the writer addresses possible objections to his or her argument. Ask yourself, of all the objections, did the writer choose the most compelling ones? The more compelling the objections addressed, the more rigorous and credible the author’s writing.
To read critically, we have to do the following:
One. Comprehend the author's purpose and meaning, which is expressed in the claim or thesis
Two. Examine the evidence, if any, that is used
Three. Find emotional appeals, if any, that are used
Four. Identify analogies and comparisons and analyze their legitimacy
Five. Look at the topic sentences to see how the author is building his or her claim
Six. Look for the appeals the author uses be they logic (logos), emotions (pathos), or authority (ethos).
Seven. Is the author's argument diminished by logical fallacies?
Eight. Do you recognize any bias in the essay that diminishes the author's argument?
Nine. Do we bring any prejudice that may compromise our ability to evaluate the argument fairly?
Topic for an Argumentative Essay: The Costs and Benefits of College
Writing Assignment:
In a 4-page essay that addresses the major poings in "College Calculus" and "America: Abandon Your Reverence for the Bachelor's Degree," develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the question if college is worth the cost for your particular area of study. You may consult the following:
"3 Reasons College Still Matters" by Andrew Delbanco.
"College Is Still Worth It, Despite the Cost"
