QUOTATION - ARGUMENT - EVIDENCE WORKSHEET

This worksheet is intended to guide you in reading articles strategically. Its primary purpose is
to teach you the skill of determining and understanding what the author is trying to say.

CENTRAL QUOTATION
Quote two (2) or three (3) sentences (or phrases from connected sentences) from the text that
states or indicates the central explicit or implicit argument of the article.
● ”The profound significance of names and visual symbols in native claims to power is
relevant to the Mindanao case.” (Quizon, 2012)
● “When clothing is tightly associated with one’s cultural identity, relinquishing one type
of clothing becomes part of the process of acquiring a non-“tribal” social category.”
(Quizon, 2012)
● “There is an unevenness in levels of acceptance among people that the term [lumad]
is supposed to describe.” (Quizon, 2012)

ARGUMENT
Summarize the author's argument in five (5) to seven (7) sentences; you may express this in
terms of what the author is arguing for or against.
● Quizon argues that the use of the term lumad does not exactly fit into (or does not
correspond) to those the term intends to refer to. Lumad often comes with varying
connotations, each depending on the location where it is used or the people using it.
He is also able to emphasize to readers that the scope of ones lumad-ness is very
broad and dates back to before the term lumad even existed. The author even
highlights textile and attire in his arguments, and mentions that even those come with
their own implications as well such as the dynamics of indigenous institutions and how
people operate within those institutions. Overall, what I got from the paper is that if we
want to continue the lumad discourse, we have to reexamine what that term implies.

EVIDENCE(S)
Cite at least two major evidence/s provided by the author to support her/his argument.
● Quizon recounts the Alumahad incident where “lumad” was directed to being an
activist (regarding varying connotations of lumad)
● Quizon’s encounter with Del shows the depth of the implications of attire on “lumad”
daily interactions