Government Regulation To Social Media Assignment

Government Regulation To Social Media Assignment

write a dialogic, delayed-thesis argument for a resistant audience (a viewpoint contrary to your own). This strategic argument is particularly effective for a resistant audience, a way of showing (rather than “telling”) and persuading them to arrive at your conclusion. Yes, you may use “I,” as you are taking your audience through your epistemological adventure, but be strategic with it (as Tompkins is). Rarely is this type of argument meant to utterly convince an audience; in fact, it is enough to just get a resistant audience to reconsider their own position/perspective in light of reading your comprehensive research and inductive (delayed-thesis) argument. One might also say that many people do not have fully informed opinions on subjects–this paper counters that. As you have learned, arguments at this sophisticated level are not about “winning,” and this is not a debate. Your task concerns persuading a resistant reader (one who does not agree with you) to reconsider their position.
conduct extensive research on the question/problem and distinguish between different perspectives and their context, as Tompkins did, and then narrow them down to best represent a diversity of perspectives in your paper. You are not restricted to U.S. sources. You must analyze and synthesize a minimum of 5 perspectives, which include the three that are required. Tertiary sources and other research will undoubtedly be needed and used, but they do not count in the 5 minimum required perspectives (because they do not represent perspectives).

Like Tompkins, use the following “3-Part” structure:

PART I: Set Up Your Project
It is suggested that you use the following bullet points and the “Organizational Plan for a Delayed-Thesis Argument” (Ramage 135)
narrate your history and personal relationship (experiential, observational, and or intellectual) to the subject; if you have no history or relationship to the issue, you may use someone you know–be creative. Note how Tompkins begins with appeals to emotion and credibility. establish broader, a national context for question/problem–this is your kairos.

Part II: Provide the Story of Your Research. explore the problem from multiple perspectives, showing the validity of different views. You will want to introduce, summarize, analyze, compare, and evaluate a minimum of 5 authors AND their arguments representing a diversity of perspectives (key: it is not enough to look at the primary text, as you must look at the writer and the original source of publication to evaluate bias, as Tompkins did). As you are presenting sources, you should also be comparing them and synthesizing them and sharing your responses as well as reflecting on what you are learning;
invite the audience to join with you in considering other perspectives;
show how you are wrestling with the problem;
synthesize research and respond to it;
for a good portion of the argument, keep the problem open, building some suspense.

PART III: Your Conclusion
present your major claim, your resolution or solution to the question/problem (which may side with one or more of your sources or be entirely your own), and provide reasons and evidence to support it, building on points that were presented earlier. This should be one-two, well-developed pages, not just a final paragraph;
if applicable, share any new question/s or problem/s encountered as a result of your research and critical thinking (as Tompkins does in her last paragraph).
leave the audience thinking about the problem and your position.

the three required sources to use are:

1, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E-4914-BEDB-3A7B1190BD49

2, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html

3, https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224