A Rulebook for Arguments: 5th Edition

1:

• Statements that give your reasons are premises.

• A conclusion is a should with an argument.

• facts and examples are how to make key points.

• Distinguishing claims and conclusion is resolve.

• Clarity and grace are crucial to arguments, so muddled thought

doesn’t compromise your position.

• What are the pros of your position and what are the cons of not
taking your position.

• Premises are followed by as brief of reasons as possible.

• Statements of a like kind shouldn’t be scattered through the passage,

but after the related premise.

• Avoid abstract, vague and general terms, like airy elaboration.

• Have concise and succinct sentence structure.

• Don’t play on overtones — emotionally charged words.

• Concrete evidence is all that matters.e

• Being opposed to a view that isn’t understood displays a lack of

understanding.
• An argument carries one idea through several steps — and is’t
tangential.

• Express coordinated ideas ‘parallel construction’ in similar form.

• Use connecting and transitioning words like: therefore, as well as,

thus, as a result, however, etc.

• Build on arguments by summarizing the cause and effect

progression.

• Don’t repeat the argument in the conclusion, just focus on keywords.

2:

• Some arguments offer one to two examples in supporting a

generalization.

• Good examples are key for arguing a point.

• Generalizing is tricky.

• A single example illustrates, at times. It lacks support,

• Generalizations need to be a circumspect summary.

• Large scale claims requires more evidence.

• Two or three examples are probably enough to establish a foundation

for argument.

• Anecdotal arguments fail.

• Sweeping claims need at about 3 examples to be secure enough for

further predication.
• Few of us, except statisticians, know a representative sample of
others, yet we judge groups. (Side note: As applied to polo-sci:
however, is not black and white when it comes to objective assessment
of collectivist ultranationalist, or anarcho-socialist, etc. ideologies.)

• We don’t even have adequate understanding of views held in a

specific neighborhood, like the white world not getting why blacks
don’t vote Democrat.

• Regular pollsters collect info incorrectly, so gathering and analyzing

community data is tough to be thorough on.

• Fading trends, such as with public maintenance and furnishing in

poor neighborhoods, is misrepresentative (lack of funding shows
political intent, as actions are more than words).

• A generalization needs to consider all aspects, in order — if

applicable.

• Polls fail because the ones eager to express their views lean left.

• Note rates and ratios when making representative arguments. These

must be compared to previous rates, if those stats are documented.

• An argument can become irrational based on fear of something

highly improbable.

• What’s pushed on the media isn’t always representative.

• Basing objectives on background rates (basing our prospective desire

on other’s past achievements — however statistically improbable, is
folly (gambling, for example.)

• Things are variable, so obviously, what was true may not remain that
way.
• The how: Schools may be passing more students. The Why: US
education standards have been lowered. Always assess the proverbial
‘why’.

• Loaded questions should require discretion. (Side note: A good

example is leftists asking these with Trump. Where’s that going to
lead, either sideways or down hill, quite possibly.)

• Guesswork should have the words ‘may be’. Extrapolation is

analyzing and evaluating data. (Side note: Just because one
extrapolates, doesn’t mean they’re evaluations are objective.)

• Projections (predictions) based on trends is possible, but isn’t

objective because it offers nothing.

• Counterexamples are antithetical to a generalization. Consider these

to refine and probe the depth of a generalization.. This is, of course,
proofing work. They help one get to the point.

• Trying to debunk one’s ideas leads to a peripheral awareness,

including the structural limits of on’s generalization, or thesis.

• (Side note: beware of syllogisms).

• Complexity can be subtle.

3:

• Analogous comparative examples make a solid basis for an

argument. ‘If they can do this then why can’t they do that?’

• The word ‘like’ indicates an analogous argument.

• Analogies can be figurative, but do need relevance in at least one

 solid way.

4:

• An argument must explain a source’s qualifications when they aren’t

clear.

• A perceived authority may not actually be an informed source.

• Info gets filtered through sources and can be fragmented, so it’s

important to demonstrate an understanding this in an argument.

• Authors of legit sources won’t expect the reader/viewer to change

their mind just by reading their work.

• Those who have the most at stake aren’t usually the best source, so
seek impartial sources. Be aware and critical of confirmation bias.

• Bias includes only seeing what one expects to see.

• University scientists and statistical databases are good non-biased

sources (side note: unless in the humanities or social sciences).

• Special interest groups and politicians are generally biased, like

almost certainly — to a fault.

• With statistics, look to independent agencies.

• Independence and impartiality aren’t always easy to determine.

Special interest groups will masquerade as non-biased and
independent, but are corporately or federally ‘wined and dined’.
Checking who funds them, their other publications, their track
record, and be critical of their tone.

• Look out for sources that make extreme and/or simplistic claims —
 and also, attack other perspectives. These are likely weakened by this
attitude and behavior.

• Sources need to acknowledge and thoroughly engage opposing views.

• Consult and compare a variety of sources. Look for general expert

consensus.

• Spectate rather than participate in authorities’ disagreements.

Reserve personal judgement and rather, thoroughly inquire.
Informed people tread carefully.

• Minority critics of subjects that have a solid general official

consensus are ‘outliers’, due to ideology.

• Databases offer peer reviewed info that isn’t always available on

general search engines.

• Side note: Don’t discount something just because it’s biased or not
properly backed. Be skeptical, but not dismissive. That can lead to
indoctrination. Intuition is predicated on an open mind. This applies
to unexcelled info/data. It’s okay not to know.

5:

• Evidence for a claim about causes correlates events.

• Trends may be correlated.

• An inverse correlation is hen an increase in one factor decreases

another factor simultaneously.

• Non-correlation implies a lack of cause.

• Studying correlation is a scientific strategy for research.

• Arguments from correlation are compelling, but may be difficult to
interpret because of a multitude of ways that it can be explained.

• Correlations can be purely coincidental and even when there’s a solid

connection, it doesn’t establish a connection on it’s own.

• If E2 correlates with E2, E1 might cause E2, but E2 may actually

cause E1. E3 might actually cause both E1 and E2. Like just because
successful people have a better attitude, but that isn’t necessarily a
predicate for someone to be successful. Sitting in front of the class
doesn’t necessarily mean ensuring getting better grades, nor does
being a better student lead to sitting up front. E3 would be the
commitment variable.

• Certain people may be drawn to things because of their constitution,

rather than being fundamentally influenced by that specific thing,
such as calm people and meditation.

• Mutliple/complex causes have variables.

• A variety of explanations are possible, so the most likely explanation

for a correlation-based argument is best for this challenge.

• Fill in connections of varying explanations.

• The best explanations are usually practical.

• Conspiratorial explications end up leaving more unexplained.

• A an example of a loop of cause and effect is that independence may

lead to creativity in art, but creativity could create a more conducive
environment for creativity.

6:
• Deductive reasoning dictates that if a premise is true, then the
conclusion must be true.

• Modus tollens is a conditional statement in which ‘if P then Q’ is

inferred and the consequent (not -Q) doesn’t hold, then the
antecedent can be inferentially negated (not -P).

• Hypothetical syllogism. If P then Q and if Q then R, so if P then R.

• Either D or F, so if not D — then F.

• P or Q. If P then R, if Q then S. R or S is the answer.

• Reductio ad absurdum: An argument to derive absurdity from its

denial, arguing a a claim is valid because its rejection isn’t tenable.
(used in math and philosophy from antiquity).

• Disjunctive syllogism affirms by denying, having a disjunctive

statement (expressing a choice) for a premise. The word ‘or’ is
typical in this logical argument.

7:

• First opinions don’t need to be shared. Never jump to a conclusion.

• Find out all the doubts held by skeptics or experts in that field.

• Work an argument out with modus ponens and a hypothetical

syllogism.

• To basic of description can lead to a simple of an assertion.

• Probability is oftentimes key to address in an argument.

• Not every premise needs development and defense, but can help
 embellish the argument, so readers relate. Try to debunk your own
argument and find most pressing and commons concerns that base
it’s critique. Consider alternatives and re-evaluate, if necessary.

8:

• For an argument essay, get straight tot the point by avoiding windups
or rhetorical layering.

• Don’t elaborate on a claim or proposal, be succinct and specific to

urge the audience.

• Create a concise paragraph of the argument to outline the big picture

for the essay.

• Each premise must be advanced throughout the work by restating,

developing and defending it with a few examples.

• Summarize the argument for specific premises after explaining its

role in the main claim. This can even take a couple of paragraphs to
illustrate the point. Reorient the audience with the main claim again
after summarizing.

• Use consistent terms.

• Detail objections thoroughly and meet them objectively. Have an

open mind to feedback and incorporate it or address it appropriately.
Anticipate the possible need for clarification.

• Modesty is key in making an argument. Don’t claim more than the

evidence you’ve presented.

• Be both calm and enthusiastic in an oral presentation. Don’t make

the audience anxious, or stress them out. Acknowledge gratitude for
the opportunity to speak. If you don’t act interested and inviting with
 attitude and expression, the audience will become bored.

• Check yourself before you wreck yourself with patronage.

• Respect the audience and yourself.

• Be fully present in your presentation, r what’s the point of suiting up

and showing up. Make eye contact with the crowd, or camera.

• Don’t feel stuck behind the podium, own the stage and command
respect.

• Transition/segue gracefully by talking slow enough, pausing, as well

as using phrases like ‘so this brings me to my next point’, or ‘which
leads me to the subsequent topic of...’. Give people time to think
because many listeners have selective hearing, or may be tired, or
have a lot on their mind. Before transitioning, connect with the
audience by letting them know that you’re aware — by looking at
them to acknowledge who is still with you.
• Power-points are a great way to engage the audience and ensure
they’re with you. These should just be to anchor the audience and an
embellished expose’ by becoming a slide-reader is just overkill.
• Hew means to cut and reshape to fit, which is important to consider
with visuals. How will it best represent your point, while captivating
the attention of the audience. Paper handouts are a good option to
consider, as they can be a reminder and reference after the seminar.
• Make sure to end the lecture on time because punctuality conveys
professionalism, and is crucial to ethos. End on a high note and
ensure the audience has a memorable imprinted impression of your
demeanor and conduct. Thank the audience and wish them well.

9:

• Winning people over can take time and so, leave people thinking.
• The quality of debating has become less cordial and tactful in the
 present time.

• The stakes are high and pressure is on, so know you did your best
and be proud of that.

• Debates are about active listening and being calm, cool and collected,
not just sounding off with ‘guns blazing’. Have dignity — be fair and
civil, don’t just deride the opponent sanctimoniously, regardless if
you’re right to a fault.

• Opponents who slander you feel threatened, so understand that and

proceed with caution. BE honest and humble.

• Be articulate to ground your justified passion and make your

performance compelling.

• Be patient to fully conceive of the opponent’s methods and thought

process, rather than evaluating their conclusion instantaneously.

• The word ‘no’ puts a debater into an affronting position, which might
get them checkmated for being impetuous.

• Giving the opponent the grace and respect of active listening and
inquiry gives you leverage when you speak.

• Offer positive solutions that will be affirmed by the audience, don’t

get bogged down in literal bickering with interruptions and personal
shots, etc..

• Reiterating facts with a different connotation reinforces and

integrates the point, circumspectly developing ideas predicated on
these facts.

• Work from common ground to compromise on contentious and

complicated extreme points of view. Explain why you see it that way
rather than speaking with terse absolutism. Read between the lines,
 so to speak. There are anecdotal situations where it’s a battle.

Appendix:

• Ad hominem attacks a person rather than their argument. It’s called

character assassination.

• Ad ignoratiam appeals to uninformed people, like an unfounded

accusation. Even if it’s axiomatic (self-evident) — it needs a solid
backing. The accusation can endure, given a lack of info to confirm
or deny it.

• Ad misericordiam is appealing to pity for a special argument. It’s

inappropriate, as far as objectivity is concerned. If someone misses an
exam because of a death in the family, then maybe that’s more legit
— even though they didn’t notify the teacher, due to extreme grief.

• Ad populum is appealing to the emotions of the crowd (Trump/

Sanders). This is not a valid way to base an approach, given the
method isn’t factual. Known as a bad argument from authority.

• A true conclusion isn’t guaranteed, even if the premises are true.

• Modus ponens is a rule of logic stating if P equals Q, then P is the

antecedent and Q is the consequent. Q doesn’t equal P because P
equals Q. If P is true then Q can be inferred. It’s similar to a
syllogism.

• Modus ponens and the syllogism assume what is trying to be proven.

• Circular argument (circular reasoning) is begging the question.

These are also assumptions that because the premise is allegedly true,
then the conclusion must be, as well.

• Complex questions are posed in a way to stifle opposition, so that they

 can’t agree or disagree in that moment. Therefore, the person being
asked this must commit to a claim that’s being promoted. A simple
yes or no response commits someone to fit into the box that the
querent is framing. This can be used to indirectly guilt trip people.

• Denying the antecedent — a deductive mistake of the form. If not P

then, therefore, not Q. This approach overlooks alternatives.

• Modus tollens is a valid deductive form.

• Equivocation is shifting from one meaning of a term to another in the

midst of an argument. Between premise and conclusion the
qualifying word (like fairness) shifts its meaning. Once the
equivocation is removes, it’s evident that the conclusion isn’t related
to — or supported by the premise.

• False cause is a generic term for a questionable conclusion about

cause and effect. False cause is a questionable conclusion about
causation.

• False dilemma is reducing options to a diametrically opposed

argument. It can be unfair to those to whom the dilemma is posed.
Constituent premises are narrowed down, as alternatives are
overlooked.

• Ethical arguments are especially prone to false dilemmas that

relegate them to a black and white debate.

• Loaded language plays on the emotions and is a form of

manipulation.

• Mere re-description is rephrasing the conclusion when offering a

premise. There’s no specific, independent reasoning. Mere
description just begs the question (the premise and conclusion aren’t
distinguished enough to be separated), but is technically it’s own
logical fallacy.
• A premise can’t presuppose a conclusion, or it’s basically equivalent
to an educated guess.

• Non sequitur means that the conclusion has no reasonable inference

from, or even relatable to evidence.

• Overgeneralization is summing up from too few examples.

• Generalizations must be demonstrably representative.

• Overlooking alternatives is, or instance, when one assumes that A

causes B, when A really just follows B, or vice versa. There’s more
than one variable to many issues. (post hoc argument).

• Persuasive definition is favorably or unfavorably loaded. It’s infused

with an emotional overtone (or perhaps undertone).

• Poisoning the well is loaded language to disparage an argument

before mentioning it. The delivery is oftentimes both subtle and overt.

• Red herring means introducing an irrelevant, or secondary subject

that diverts attention from the main point.

• A straw person, or straw-manning — is a caricature of an opposing

view, exaggerated from what anyone likely actually holds. These are
easily refutable.

• Slippery slope is a small assertion that leads to a chain reaction of

events that culminated that usually have a negative effect.

• False authority is having dubious credentials, or a lack of credentials.

• Bandwagon fallacy is that if everyone does it then it’s justifiable

when compared to just one or a couple people causing a violation.
 The Crafts of Research: 4th Addition

1:

• We always benefit from research that others do — and oftentimes,

those researchers benefit from prior research preformed by others.

• There’s countless research avenues to pursue and we can add to the

work already done by asking questions.

• Governments spend billions on research and businesses even more.

• Research goes on in labs and libraries, nature, etc. and is the worlds
biggest industry.

• Incorrect information and even dangerous subversive ideas (via

tactics) are enacted upon the unwitting populous because of the lack
of awareness of the facts.

• Skeptically questioning research is important because even though

we depend on it, we must be weary of disinformation to a high degree.

• Articles, newspapers and academic journals are the most common

sources of research.

• Research allows one to join centuries old and esteemed scholarly

conversations by scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, doctors,
artists, writers, literary critics, mystics, theologians, etc.

• Research can better ourselves and others, potentially.

• Research is asking a question to an issue, gathering data to analyze

and evaluate, then summing it up.
• Take notes or be subject to forgetting information.

• Arranging and rearranging results of research can reveal new

implications, connections and complications.

• Comparing and contrasting data and info is a way to sort out many
complications, allowing one to spot the processing error, or to
formulate another research question.

• Start the project to assemble a literary construct before gathering all

data/ info.

• It’s important to have others read your writing, so they can reflect on
it and help you be objective.

• Drafting is crucial because we need to revise and expound upon our

material to formulate a solid work.

• Truth is the highest value, but there comes a point when you have to
stick to the status quo, as to not alienate others.

• Research done with academic formatting will enable the writer/seeker

to not inflect bias.

2:

• Keep readers in mind when planning and drafting.

• Researching is joining a conversation between writers and readers.

• We can adjust our roles in conversation to address mistakes and

understandings, so that we don’t preach as an expert would to an
audience.

• In writing, we have to fix roles, so we take a position when addressing

 our audience.

• REM sleep helps contain memory, so losing sleep will make one lose
facts and concepts that they needed to catalog in their mind.

• Writers make judgements of reader’s needs and goals.

• When addressing readers who know little of the subject, avoiding

using technical vocabulary is advised.

• Readers don’t want to feel condescended, or lectured, so persuasion is

necessary to get them invested.

• Research isn’t about digging up enough facts to be circumspect, but

rather making a compelling point that is backed up by the right facts
and questions.

• Offering information by letting the reader know that they might be

interested in your findings.

• Being enthusiastic about sharing new info is key.

• Facts can be presented as a solution that the reader cares about —

because they’re reading your work.

• Research can be presented as practical advice to those who need it.

• Use correct terminology, cite correct sources, use correct evidence —

all in the right format, to create credible work.

• It’s important to assign a role to yourself based on intent, so the work

doesn’t seem like an academic assignment.

• Pure research is the aim of understanding something conceptually —

like in theory, while applied research is the systematic empirical study
to problem solve.
• Offering readers a social contract is important, for example, offer the
perspective of how they can contribute.

• Motivate readers to play the role you’ve imagined for them.

• Research shouldn’t be to trivially engage readers to merely prose

question. It needs to speculate on information and substantiate
claims.

• The approach of prose works when the audience is already on the

same page, but must be backed by problem solving, as to not be
tangential and irrelevant.

• Objectivity and rigorous logical analysis is required to assess a

situation from all sides.

• Disagreements can be motivating, but lack of interest in one’s work is

devastating, potentially.

• One must not just report facts, but integrate these facts into a thesis
and ideology and/or methodology., as to appeal to them on why this
info matters.

• Academic reproachers are scoffed at for studying ‘esoteric’ topics

that only matter to themselves.

• Present information as to reach a common ground, to fulfill the

social contract. Show interest about why and how they perceive it
their way.

• How will I contradict them and how will they create counter
arguments?

• Find a specific topic that is within a reasonable time frame for a

deadline
• Question that topic until interesting questions are found.

• Find info and questions that will be compelling

• Determine kinds of evidence readers will expect. (e.g.. primary or

secondary sources).

• Ensure you’ll be capable to find evidence before pursuing the

investigation.

• You’ll think you’ll have the perfect point before gathering enough
evidence.

• Research will be like zigzagging — not necessarily a straight road to

the answers.

• Info is how data is processed, like expounded upon, or given

perspective.

• Outlines and diagrams, summarize and explaining why you disagree

with a source, journalizing are parts of research. This encourages
critical-thinking.

• Academic research creates isolation, which is why it’s important to

peer-review (like a group).

• A group can ask questions, respond and offer suggestions.

• Educated guessing helps brainstorming, as food for thought.

• Don’t use word contractions in an academic research paper.

3:
• Finding a topic isn’t just a matter of narrowing a subject.

• A topic is an approach to a subject that asks a focus question to solve

a problem that readers are concerned with.

• It’s important to ask consequential questions

• Explore research potential of topics that are personally interesting

that will, in turn, interest others.

• It’s important to discriminate between objectivity and bias in sources,

to be able to differentiate, so you’ll know how to approach
researching for evaluation of the material.

• Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source, but is good food for thought and
should be used to lead to more questions to find further evidence.

• Journals, general or specified indexes, encyclopedias, newspapers,

chronicles, and magazine articles are good sources.

• Government agencies, museums and national associations are also

good sources.

• A topic is likely too broad if it can’t be stated in four to five words.

• Words like conflict, contribution, description and development are

good in developing a topic.

• Summarizing facts and pinpointing contradictions works, but to be a

successful researcher, one must formulate specified questions and not
just create order out of jumbled notes.

• Serious researchers don’t document facts and info for the sake of it.

• It’s more about how and why then who, what, when and where.
• Focus on the questions composition, categories and history.

• Gather questions rather than answering them as the you go because

it’s important to have an overview to create a circumspect context for
the main query.

• Consider how a chosen topic is categorized — how it fits into a larger

structure of composition, or system.

• Ask positive and negative questions based on why.

• Consider the significance of a chosen topic and it’s relevance to the

function of the whole.

• Find a persuasive point and build on it — ask analogous questions.

• Ask poignant questions that promote disagreement.

• Look for questions unanswered by other researchers.

• Evaluate questions after gathering them.

• It’s important to offer new perspective to a topic of interest.

• Trivial questions shouldn’t be overlooked, or impetuously summed

up.

• Consider the motives and service of information. Is it subversive?

This gives direction to research.

• What are the implications of a question.

• As obvious as it may be, a project is literally a projection.

• Indirect questions help us think ‘how I want to discover how/what/

why/weather — clause.’ This states why one pursues a topic ion
 interest. An indirect questions explains why the first question was
initially asked.

• Drafting is important and allows for natural processing in methodical

formulation of a template for a body of work.

• 3 steps for framing research: What topic of what subject is

knowledge/ wisdom desired on, why does it matter and what effect
will it have on the readers and the field in which it’s constituted.

• Investigation through media is a good way to provoke amicable or

contrary thought to a status quo, or a specific train f thought.

• Think ahead and browse data/info beyond personal understanding.

4:

• There’s practical and conceptual problems.

• Practical problems involve conditions that have tangible costs.

• Conceptual problems are not based on creating change, but by

understanding that issue better.

• Conceptual problems will likely come before practical problems.

• A perceptual problem is technically synonymous with ‘research

problem’.

• Perceptual implies condition and cost, while research is a solution.

• Perceptual problems are abstract.

• Solving the research problem is being of service. This should be plain

for the reader to understand, so they gain conviction as you receive
 their support.

• Stating what you want is an indirect question.

• The first question of condition should be contingent on the second

question of cost because consequence is where the gravity of the
situation is.

• Pure research is conceptual, while applied research is practical.

• Applied research requires doing something about the issue, so being

proactive in the third step of the research equation.

• The two kinds of research problems can be combined: topic,

conceptual question, conceptual significance and potential practical
application. This kind of problem should be presented as conceptual,
though, as the solution is the conclusion.

• Humanities and many natural and social sciences have no direct

application to living, but is considered learning for knowledge’s sake
— because it’s a transcendental higher calling.

• Profit can compromise integrity of research in any given field, such

such as scientific research based on special interest groups.

• Those who just solve the puzzle of an issue may actually make a
greater contribution to their field than those who just attempt to
objectively save a problem.

• Disproving a plausible hypothesis is a possibility, which can be

positive, although unintended.

• Teachers want the student to use suggestions to start thinking, not

end it.

• Don’t try to solve the whole problem of a subject, but break it down to
 one focus question and let the rest flow naturally into place. This
ensures a linear path to understanding, given that it’s manageable.

• It’s a novice mistake to refute a point that was never made by another
researcher or author, so proof reading is essential to making sure the
context of the subject is clear.

• It’s important to be thorough in research, even when we disagree

with the source.

• Oftentimes, a researcher formulate claims that weren’t anticipated at

the beginning. This can answer an unintended problem and can open
another window to the research project.

• Summarize, critique, question and respond to sources.

• Keep a progress journal.

• Patience and repetition with drafting and revising are a must with
research.

• The last sentence of a conclusion can emphasize a new problem that

will be further researched. This creates continuity in the process of
research.

5:

• Primary sources are original material.

• Letters, diaries, objects and maps are some types of primary sources.

• Census and survey data would count as a primary source for social
sciences.

• Secondary sources are works based on primary sources, called

 literature, intended for scholarly or professional audiences.

• Secondary sources were peer-reviewed, meaning vet ed by experts in

the field prior to publishing.

• Secondary sources help researchers keep up with developments and

also, to stimulations their own thought process.

• Only reference secondary sources when there’s no access to primary

sources.

• Secondary sources are used to build on conclusions or methods of

others.

• tertiary sources are books (such as textbooks and encyclopedias) and

articles (like mass circulation publications — magazines)
synthesizing and reporting on secondary sources for a general
audience.

• Tertiary sources aren’t reliable for a scholarly argument.

• Tertiary sources are directed at readers who aren’t familiar with the
topic.

• Tertiary sources are subject to becoming outdated and can be

oversimplified.

• Differentiating sources works better for history, art and literature, but
less well for philosophy chemistry and nursing, for example.

• These three types of sources aren’t absolute, but relative to the

eresreacher’s project.

• Changing focus changes classification of sources.

• Because so much info is available, libraries are actually essential in

 finding original works. Librarians are a useful guidance resource
because of their subject area specialty for helping refine researcher’s
search perimeters.

• Encyclopedias are excellent sources when delving into a new subject.

Reference works with citations or bibliographies can lead to sources
that might have otherwise been overlooked.

• Libraries have subscriptions to comprehensive indexes and databases,

which sets them apart from the internet.

• Many academic databases provide abstracts, or provide one to articles

that have them.

• Speak with the librarian before paying for subscriptions because they
may have knowledge of other means of discovering that info.

• Library keyword searching and browsing are complimentary.

• Research books that are new, which you will potentially acquire
online — because they won’t show up at libraries.

• Search books, especially by university presses. Scan table of contents

and indexes for keywords and bibliography for relevant titles.
• Be suspicious of books without indexes or bibliographies.

• Citation indexing is like following a bibliographic trail forwards or

backwards.

• Don’t use the web for secondary sources.

• Readers don’t like seeing unauthorized copies cited.

• Use relevance and reliability to skim through and narrow search

results with vast sources.
• Skim pages from index on which keywords are located.

• Reading through the first and last paragraphs of setons will help
skimming.

• Skepticism should be applied to commercial books making

sensational claims, even if the author has a PhD.. This is true with
hotly debated subjects. Libraries acquire these books for the sake of
coverage. Their research could be supported by a special interest
group.

• Check to ensure sites aren’t out of date, due to abandonment.

• Painstakingly scrupulous attention to all details makes one an ethical

researcher. Ignoring certain weak points because of other strong
points is a faux pas when it comes to holding oneself to high
standards.

• Interviews can be a reliable source, as well as technique — to capture

the human element in preforming research.

• Discuss personal research with an expert for provision, such as a

librarian.

• Interviewing people can potentially harm then and one’s institution,

so acknowledging that research will be peer reviewed by board
committee to meet humanitarian standards.

6:

• Record bibliographic info first thing when using a helpful source

• When citing, follow the style for that specific field.

• Note title (subtitle included), author, edition, translator (if necessary),

 volume, publisher and place published (only first city if there’s
multiples), date published, pages/chapters consulted, library call
number (if any) and ISBN.

• For electronic sources: URL, date of access, number of database,

electronic format of book.

• For journals/articles: Title and subtitle, author, volume/issue

number, date, page number, library call number.

• Online sources: URL, name of database, date of access and

Webmaster, (if identified).

• For printed text online, record the bibliography as well as online

access info.

• Scanning info can be done by photocopying the title page and

bibliography on reverse side.

• Read along and then critically reread passages that strike you as
interesting and/or important.

• If you can’t formulate a solid argument in your mind, then you don’t
know enough to agree or disagree.

• A research problem guides to evidence, models and arguments to

respond to.

• Puzzling, simplistic or seemingly inaccurate claims can lead to

speculation and disagreement, therefore, more research problems.

• Creative agreement: offer additional support, confirm unsupported

claims, apply a claim more widely (to new issues).

• Look for source contradictions, part-whole contradictions (mistakes

in how things are thought to be related, developmental or historical
 contradictions, external cause-effect contradictions and
contradictions of perspective.

• Have a thorough understanding by anticipating arguments and

predictable questions.

• Use a secondary source as a model for analysis and reason.

• Understanding statistics and probability is important for accruing

data.

• Analyze source reasoning, supporting evidence and conclusion.

• Always take notes on sources to identify where it is and remember it.

• The standard way to takes notes on sources was the author’s name
and page number in the left hand corner, the book title on the right
and subject keywords.

• Summarize or paraphrase the source and include a comment or

about further research that’s distinguished from the quotation. Also
ass own thoughts.

• Always separate notes by topic by creating headings

• Always reread quotes or passages carefully when transcribing.

• Notes help with memorization, making connections and developing

original ideas.

• Take notes on a computer and spell check. The Grammarly app is

good, not perfect.

• Consider using a full reference-management system to catalog notes.

This may require learning a proprietary system.
• Create a file storage system and add enough sources to create an
archive.

• Collaborate with other researchers by sending them zip files of your

info archive.

• Summarizing aids in understanding.

• Notate quotes first then summarize later. Don’t pass up notating

quotes to summarize.

• Literature uses many quotes, while science uses much paraphrasing.

• Summary is good to utilize for context or views that are connected,

but not necessarily relevant.

• Paraphrasing is when a few words are more important than the

entirety of the passage.

• Be cautious of quoting out of context.

• When quoting a claim, note it’s original purpose, like if it’s a main
point, qualification or concession.

• Record scope and confidence of a claim. Be highly specific with by

factoring the subject, like differentiating variables (some of rather
than a blanket statement) and analyze incidents and rates.

• Don’t mistake a summary of another writer’s views for an author’s

summary. Always acknowledge summarizing another writer’s views.
State what they believe before trying to disprove them.

• Note why sources agree or disagree.

• Oftentimes, two sources don’t entirely agree.

• Annotating printed or electronic text. This helps for comments,
questions and cross references.

• Some texts require side-notes rather than annotations, like library

books or electronic database material.

• A researcher will acquire more notes info than they may use for that
project.

• Each source essentially needs a citation and brief description.

• Screenshots are a great method for compiling relevant info.

• Sort notes as they come so that a jumble doesn’t occur.

• What problems are we fixing or contributing to in our argument.

Think of consequences (and evaluate them) when taking a up point
of view.

7:

• Explain your principles of reasoning, qualify if necessary.

• Five research questions: 1. claim — 2. reasons — 3. evidence — 4.

acknowledgement and response — 5. warrant (logic).

• A claim is an assertion — a thesis (in the introduction of a paper/

article).

• Evidence, data and facts are important proofs.

• Warrant why a reason is relevant to a claim based on evidence.

• Respond to only most important questions, objections and

alternatives.
• A research problem isn’t complete without acknowledges and
responses.

• Specific circumstances of the reason qualifies a plausible instance of

the general circumstances of the warrant.

• Specific consequences of claim qualifies a plausible instance of

general consequence from the warrant.

• Support claim with at least two reasons, which must be supported by

its own reasons and evidence.

• Sub-claims are supported by their own arguments.

• Where was the evidence collected and why?

• Arguments need background, explanations and definitions.

• An ethos is the character you project in your argument. It becomes a

reputation.

• Are you open minded about something or not? explain principles of

reasoning.

• An ethos creates trust.

• Don’t fall back on what you can prove, rather, explore and solve.

• Be flexible and adaptable to how a field functions, like with

approaching data and info gathering and analysis.

• Don’t over-simplify.

• Master an argument and move on.

• Formulate multiples solutions with multiples ways of supporting each
one.

• Ask others if they’d approach your problem differently.

• For success, anticipated things aren’t as difficult as feared, but aren’t

as simple as had been hoped for.

8:

• Claim needs to be significant and specific, as to be tentative to the

main point.

• A research questions with tests and supports a solution.

• Question whether a claim is important enough to need an argument

in the first place.

• Conceptual rather than practical problems due readers to

understand, not
act.

• A claim should address the following questions: Is it real, how should

it be categorized /labeled, how did it get this way, evaluate it and
decide how to approach solving it.

• Types of clams: Fact/existence, definition/classification, cause/

consequence, evaluation/appraisal and action/policy. (Fact,
definition, cause and value).

• Claims of definition and classification rely on reasoning about

similarities or differences that assigns an entity to a broader class, or
distinguishes it.

• Effective claims of evaluation or appraisal depend on criteria of

 judgement on whether something is good or bad, or better or worse
than something else.

• A practical claim is either for or against an action or policy. These

are built on a chain of conceptual claims demonstrating a problem
exists, another that shows what causes a problem and how to solve it.

• Sub-arguments: Understand why the solution is feasible — how it

can be implemented, why it’s more equitable than the problem, why it
won’t create a bigger issue than it’s being used to solve — and why
it’s more economically and/or practically efficient than other
solutions (which can be challenging to support).

• Be clear on whether claims are conceptual or practical.

• Don’t inflate the importance of a claim by taking on a practical

action, at least not in the early stages of a paper/project.

• A practical application of a conceptual claim would be appropriate I

the conclusion of the work, wherein an action can be offered without
having to build a case for it.

• Vagueness is not professional, so use precise language and explicit

logic.

• Thorough explanation gives the writer a richer concepts to develop,

as well as a deeper understanding for readers.

• Succinct and circumspect delivery will keep the reader interested.

• A final claim should be more specific than an introductory

explanation of the claim.

• the final claim should only be as specific as necessary, having only

conceptual themes developed in the argument.
• A claim that offers a singular proposition can be explicit, while being
relative —meaning that it should be introduced with a qualifying
clause (although/even though), or conclude it with a reason-clause
that begins with because.

• Argument elements: Although I acknowledge Y, I claim X because of

reason Z.

• Introductions with although/even though : Challenge a belief

commonly held by readers, acknowledge a conflicting viewpoint and
recognize a condition that limits the scope r confidence of the initial
claim.

• Understand opposing views and commit to responding to them in the

course of the argument you present.

• A final ‘because’. Clause forecasts reasons of support for the claim.

• The measurement of a solid argument is how much it requires

readers to alter their views.

• How many other beliefs must readers alter if they are to identify with
your perspective.

• readers value facts and conjecture of what disrupts what has been
taught to be settled.

• Reverse claims to gauge their reasoning. EG. If it’s true, then state it
as false — and vice versa.

• Advanced researchers are aware of their impact on the research

community. How much they affect change.

• Small findings can be as useful as big claims.

• Claims are most credible when modestly acknowledging limitations.

 Arrogant certainty damages a researchers ethos.

• Readers should observe that a researcher acknowledges and has

considered their point of view.

• Qualify an arguments scope and certainty.

• Every claim has limiting conditions, but due to there being too many
variables, oftentimes — note the ones readers might plausibly
consider.

• some fields (economics) have changing claims and conditions to

watch for, while other fields (sciences) have a constant/universal
method of measurement.

• Phrases like ‘at least’ for a claim or ‘unless’ for a response can
articulate an accurate statement for the claim.

• An argument can be formatted as claim — acknowledgement,

response, limitations, then reassert claim.

• Hedges are bold noted that indicate a limitation of certainty, such as

suggestions, opinions, beliefs. “Appear’ to be ‘some’ of them signifies
an inexactitude. They allow for cautious passages.

• An aggressive tone is oftentimes accompanied by lack of verification/

validation.

• over-hedging will display uncertainty, or timidity.

• Flat words such as never, always, no one, every, all and so on

conveys a reason for readers to distrust.

• Hedges shouldn’t qualify every trivial claim.

 9:

• A storyboard is a set of index cards or pages that each have a

supporting reason tot eh main claim. Each reason has a sub-reason,
or subset of reasons. Each of these subsets have evidence below them.
These can be ordered to be coherent.

• Create a bedrock of uncontested evidence of undeniable facts. Avoid

generalizations and provide hard data/info. Then, provide data/info to
back up that info — to further harden it.

• Reconcile a source’s motivation for presented evidence by analyzing

and evaluating the how and why. Taking this approach helps with
discerning reliability.

• Evidence has a trail of breadcrumbs that must be traced back its

origin, as much as possible.

• Data/info gets misconstrued when passed on and/or put into a new

context.

• It’s important to distinguish the best way of representing info/data,

such as to how and why to count, order, categorize and present
(chart/graph/table) particularly.

• Video and photos depict a certain point of view. Those who collect
data/info will invariably shape how it’s perceived.

• Again, primary sources, complete citations an a bibliography are the

fundamentals in platforming a subject.

• Methodologies have been standardized in their fields, but some

researchers still get away with fraud.

• In this day and age, we have research reports and and opinion
surveys that are dubious or fake, oftentimes using cherry-picked data.
• The last link in the chain of credibility is the you.

• The requirement for a solid argument is that evidence must be

screened to be sufficient, representative, accurate, precisely reported
and from an authoritative source.

• Acknowledging the questionable quality of a source allows for it to be

used as evidence (with an asterisk).

• Using a source that supports your claim, but rejecting it for not being
reliable enough — builds reader’s trust, as well as creating a
cautious and self-critical logos that bolsters the ethos.

• Be as specific with amounts or rates as possible, don’t use figurative

language like ‘a lot’, ‘very likely’, ‘probably, ‘more-so’, especially for
hard sciences, rather than like political science — to an extent.
Estimations are appropriate when acknowledging that’s the most
objective means of conveying info, rather than hard data. Eg.
communism has killed over 100 million worldwide.

• Don’t be too precise unless like dealing with forensics or again, hard
sciences. Eg. that occurred at 5:31 AM in the SW side of the third
floor storage room — 3 feet away from the closet — between the
stairs and bench (go figure).

• Evidence must represent the full range of available variants.

• Small samples from large bodies of data aren’t sufficient for

evidence.

• Anecdotal arguments aren’t representative. (Opinion: this can be a

tough pill to swallow for some in the field of humanities and social
sciences, for political correctness issues). This ties back into cherry-
picking.
• Anecdotal arguments can serve as a different form of evidence than
statistical representations, such as with a case study, or exception that
proves the rule (testing rule to prove its value); however, an argument
is only as strong as its supporting evidence.

• Different fields define and evaluate evidence differently.

• Research arguments that failed because their evidence was judged for
being weak or nonexistent. These are the best teacher for
understanding reliability.

10:

• An argument’s core is a claim backed by reasons based on evidence.

• A main claim (thesis) can be introduced as a solution to a problem.

• Intrinsic soundness has clear claims, relevant reasoning and

qualitative
evidence.

• Extrinsic soundness means considering alternatives, different ways of

framing the issue, awareness that evidence was plausibly overlooked/
missed — and a consideration for what others have written n the
topic.

• Trying to anticipate every reaction in the early stages of formulating

an argument will stymie the researcher.

• Arguments can be seen as collaborative inquiry, or a dual of wills.

• Ensure the answer can be found when a roadblock impedes progress.

• Be aware of where an argument may seem weak, but actually isn’t.

Bolster this by diffusing any concern by addressing it.
• The nature and quality of a problem-solution may be scrutinized for a
lack of evidence.

• Skeptical readers may have a stake in a differing solution than yours.

• Build credibility with humility. Question your own process.

• Find opposing sources to compare and contrast.

• A secondary source is a written record of a conversation on the

specific topic being researched.

• Respond to gathered source’s claims and evidence.

• Sources help imagine reader’s reactions to your work.

• Keywords: Questions, alternatives and objections.

• To narrow alternatives and/or objections, prioritize with plausibly

reputable weakness, alternative lines of argument of that particular
field, other conclusions readers want to be true, differing evidence
that readers already know and — counterexamples that need to be
addressed.

• Some alternatives offer the opportunity to repeat a part f your

argument.

• If readers offer a similar solution to yours than repeat the virtues of

your argument.

• Only address alternatives that appeal to readers only if they can be

circumspectly assess without dismissal.

• An irreconcilable error in an argument means rebuilding the

argument, or redefining the problem..
• An unsupportable claim can be rendered to a hypothesis, displaying
why it may not be reasonable.

• Forego the last word on an argument, showing maturity of character.

• Don’t offer a competing claim when responding. Follow up with

more reasoning and evidence, or yield your time. Better less is stated
than trying to push a perspective.

• Strategize so alternatives aren’t hidden. Use all available resources,

so people know you put i n the work.

• When an alternative or objection warrants little credence, it’s

important to be thorough in analyzing and summarizing it, to prove a
point — unless it’s inferentially fallacious to an obvious extent. It can
then be respectfully dismissed.

• Words like despite, regardless of, or notwithstanding are good to

downplay opposition. Although, while and even though are good, too.

• Indirectly signal acknowledgement with an adverb like plausibly,

justifiably, reasonably, surprisingly or certainly.

• Give weight to an objection or alternative by attributing tit o an

unnamed source (someone being art of the discussion). ‘Another
possible explanation/line of argument/account/possibility might/may/
can could/does suggest/indicate/ point to/lead some to think — that...

• Attributing to an interlocutor (some/many /aa few who might/may/

could would argue/claim/object/think/charge that some researchers/
critics/scholars have demonstrated that research shows...

• Don’t prematurely denigrate with naive/occasionally careless person

didn’t.
• Dismissing with a a passive verb like ‘I understand/know/realize
that...’ ‘IT’s true/possible/likely that...’ ‘It must/should/can be
admitted/acknowledged/noted./ conceded that...’

• Begin response with a term or phrase that signifies disagreement that

are in the middle f tactful and blunt. Like short and sweet. Like offer
the possibility that the source is legit, but they don’t understand. Also,
note that there’s unsettled issues. Dismissing one by stating their
position is irrelevant or unreliable, backed with examples. ‘Insightful
as it seems, this ignores/is irrelevant to/doesn’t expound upon the fact
that...for the issue at hand.’ ‘Evidence/reasoning here is unreliable/
shaky because...’ ‘The argument is untenable/weak/confused/
simplistic, as it ignores/overlooks...’

• Focus on the work, not on the person objecting or challenging.

• Make it known when more evidence is needed, rather than going

along with the person trying to lay down the facts.

• No effect has a single cause and vice versa.

• Acknowledge vivvid and plausible counterexamples first.

• Readers must accept your definitions. X could be subjectively

different to them than you. Be articulate with explanations.

11:

• A proverb is a warrant

• A proverb connects reasoning to a conclusion. Proverbs can used at

signs of something wrong, to infer that something is actually wrong.

• Proverbs cover a circumstance and consequence.

• Proverbs justify reasoning, such as cause and effect, rules of
behavior, reliable inference. etc.

• Academic warrants are more challenging than everyday warrants and

proverbs. There’s specified reasoning principles that belong to certain
research communities.

• Experienced researchers rarely state their warrant explicitly when

writing for specialized readers because these readers can be
presumed to already know them.

• Warrants are used by experts to non-experts, or when being

challenged.

• Academic warrants are used to compress circumstances and

consequences, in that two phrases are combined into condensed
sentences. This doesn’t distinguish a circumstance from its
subsequent consequence.

• Offer general circumstances and general consequences that illustrate

a conclusion, when challenged by someone who doesn’t comprehend
the ‘elegance’ to the claim.

• Circumstances and consequences must be more generalized than

claim and reasons.

• Readers may think a warrant doesn’t substantiate a claim.

Anticipating this, a warrant would be used to link a reason to a
specific claim, beforehand.

• Ensure the warrant is reasonable, sufficiently limited, superior to

competing warrants, appropriate in its field and — covers the reason
of the claim.

• A consequence must clearly follow the circumstance of a warrant. A

warrant must qualify a reason within its limits.
• Words like most and usually require examples for exceptions.

• Warrants can be contraindicative. The limitations of the warrant

need to be acknowledged, as to avoid contradiction.

• A warrant must be appropriate to a specific research community.

• The predicate/instance may not warrant reasoning, even if the reason

is practically legitimate.

• State principles of reasoning only when dealing with people outside

your field, is new or controversial in your field, or when anticipating
it will be met with resistance, due to the audience’s preconditioned
convictions.

• It’s cordial to state warrants so that those not in the know can
identify with your argument. Silence on these issues is a strong, but
more firm position.

• All arguments rely on warrants, even though they’re usually not

stated.

• Warranting that childhood violence is because of video games doesn’t

take TV into account, so it isn’t predicted on a solid assertion.

• Warrants that are contended with are perceived as either irrelevant to

the claim, or no based on sound evidence.

• The most challenging argument is to take on claims and warrants of

established reasoning. Imagine how those who accept it would defend
it.

• To challenge warrants, either challenge the reliability o he

experience (difficult), or find irrefutable counterexamples.
• Challenge an authority by claiming they don’t have the necessary
evidence and/or that they’re reaching outside their area of expertise.
Even state their source isn’t an authority.

• Challenge their system, or demonstrate how their case isn’t covered

by the warrant.

• Warrants are backed by a collective experience, as to be considered

common sense.

• A meta-warrant is a methodological warrant — general patterns of

thought applied to specific cases. Analogy: X is like Y usually, so X
will be like Y in other aspects ‘the apple doesn’t fall far from the
tree’. Sign: When Y is a regular occurrence, before, during, or after
X, thenY is a sign of X (assumption). Challenge application, or
limiting conditions, not the methodology.

• Some claims are experienced and axiomatically true, regardless of

empirical extrapolation or rhetorical analysis. It’s considered a
certainty, like only a ‘flat-earther’ would challenge that planets and
stars are spherical.

• Justify reason by offering evidence, or deriving them from a warrant

(plausibility). Researchers prefer evidence-based arguments.

• Discard legitimate, yet irrelevant pages from a draft.

• Summaries, analysis and critique allow one to support claim with

reasons based on evidence that warrant a solution.

• Know your audience, what character you want to project, draw

questions and answers out to more than a sentence (like two or
three), can illustrate reason and evidence succinctly and in order,
know the questions, alternatives and objections — and where readers
ay not see the reason to a claim, justifying a warrant.
• A hypothesis is an unsubstantiated claim that needs to answer a
question to create a solution — the thesis/claim.

14:

• Support your own original thinking with quotes, paraphrases and

summaries.

• Hard science research paraphrase and summarize more than quote.

• Summarize when details are irrelevant , or a source isn’t important

enough to warrant much space.

• Paraphrase to make a source more concise or clear, or when your

argument depends on details in a source, rather than specific words.

• Quote for the following purposes: The words are evidence, the words
are from an authority that backs up your claims, the words are
original, or express key concepts compellingly — and a passage states
an opposing view — and to be fair, needs to state it exactly.

• Cite bibliographic data of quotes, paraphrases and summaries.

• For four or less lines, fit them into paragraph with quotation marks,
but for five or more lines, block them off as separate.

• Use identifying words with quotations, such as ‘as the author states’.

• Introduce quotation with a sentence that interprets or characterizes it.

Use the same grammar in the quotation as in your sentence, for
uniformity.

• You can alter a quotation, as long as it’s left in tact. Signal deletions
with an ellipse [...].
• Evidence never speaks for itself. Direct your readers with an opening
sentence before the presentation of evidence.

• Citations protect the researcher from plagiarism.

• Getting little details right builds trust with readers.

• Range and depth are necessary for adequate sources.

• As you rely on sources for your research, some readers will rely on
your bibliography.

• Fully and accurately cited sources sustain and enrich the community
that gives written research scholarly and social value.

• Don’t rely on software to format work, instead, learn the styles of

formatting.

• If the title follows the author then it’s called author-title, if the author
follows the date then it’s called author-date.

• Chicago author-title style uses a bibliography with no footnotes or

endnotes. Names are listed as first-last. Individual elements of a note
are separated by commas, not periods.

• MLA style has a list of works cited and sources cited parenthetically
in text (in-text citations).

• Chicago author-date style has parenthetic citing, as well as a

bibliography.

• APA (publications manual of the American psychological

association), also the style for social sciences, uses parenthetic
citations, as well.

• Paraphrasing a cited source is plagiarism because it’s based word for

 word on that source.

• Cite each paraphrase or summary on a page, but if it covers a longer

section, such as a page or two, then cite it at the end.

• Cite sources immediately, so it’s not forgotten or lost.

• Use a moderate amount of quotes, not too many (will convey naivety
for being too familiar) and not too few (may convey plagiarism).

• Citations are expected when an idea is associated with a specific

person and an idea is new to the field, not being common knowledge.

• Free and publicly available sources need citing, as well.

• Teachers are unforgiving of honest mistakes because these mistakes

on a professional platform will ruin a writer’s reputation.

• Use sources carefully and acknowledge them thoroughly.

• Notes duplicate info in a bibliography, so researchers are using

parenthetic notes more.

• Et al means neuter plural abbreviation. Means a’and

others’ (contributors) MLA.

• Qtd. for secondary sources MLA .

15:

• Use a table for data (graphic) if using more than like, three statistics.

• Tables are precise, using discrete numbers, which leaves the audience
to infer relationships or tends.
• Charts aren’t technically as objective as tables, as they relate
numbers with more impact, due to the visual contrast. Bar charts
contest secret variables, while line graphs show change over time.

• Someone who is an advanced researcher in their field will use more

advanced methods of quantitive depiction than a basic graph, chart
or table.

• An embellished ‘fancy’ graphic is a waste of time for the reader.

• Graphics of complex numbers rarely speaks for itself. Every graphic

must be labeled to specifically describe its data. The title or legend
shouldn’t be too general. No background information or
characterization (like evaluating words) is required for a graphic
representation.

• Information inserted into another column that allows the audience to

understand the relationship of the data/info to the claim is necessary.

• Introduce the graphic or figure with a sentence so the audience has

context for interpretation. If there are no page numbers, paragraph
numbers, or obvious subdivisions, cite the author's name in a signal
phrase in the text rather than in parentheses at the end of the
sentence.

• The data should only be provided if it’s relevant to the point.

• Never use both dark horizontal and vertical lines to divide rows.
Instead, use grey for one.

• Grids are for complexity where exactitude is necessary.

• Color or shade lines only to convey contrast.

• Light shading for every fifth row for tables with many rows.
• Only use color if the text will be printed rather than photocopied.
Don’t use iconic bars (picture of something).

• 3-D graphs are only appropriate where the audience is familiar with
kind of display.

• Label all rows and columns of a chart/graph, as well as both axes.

• Tick marks and labels indicate intervals on the vertical axes of a

graph.

• Label lines, bar segments and anything similar on the image rather
than in the legend off to the side. Legends are only implemented if
labeling would overcomplicate the image.

• Specific numbers would be notated with bars or segments in charts,

or to dots on a graph.

• Arrange columns by principal (what you want the reader/audience to

see), not alphabetically.

• Round numbers to a value. Differences less than 1,000 are irrelevant.

• Summed totals are at the end of a row or bottom of a column, not at

the top or to the left.

• Bar charts should be ordered in a coherent pattern relevant to how

the text explains.

• Standard bar charts represent the whole, but specific numbers can be
represented as part of the whole. Either divide the bars into
proportional sections (stacked bar), or put parts of the whole into
individual bars and then group them in clusters.

• The segments should be logically ordered with the largest segment

shaded darkest, at the bottom.
• List segments with numbers and connect corresponding segments
with grey lines (to assist the reader/audience in compared data).

• Segments that are as important s the whole should be arranged by

size and ordered uniformly in the chart.

• Pie charts are popular in tabloids, magazines and annual reports.

• Line graphs should increase or decrease depending on the point

being made. So if less loss of something is occurring, show the
increased rate of retention.

• Use six lines on a graph only if it’s the only way to make a point.

• Fewer than ten data points should be depicted as dots. If only a few of
these dots are relevant then put numbers by them to show the exact
value.

• Different shades shouldn’t distinguish lines because it is too visually

arbitrary.

• Get a second opinion of the graphic to ensure it’s legitimate.

• Don’t truncate scales to exaggerate visuals. Charts may look

different , but convey the same data, so face value can be
manipulated to sell the point.

• Never manipulate a scale of contrast, use an image that distorts

values, overcomplicate or oversimplify graphic,

• Acknowledge the possibly misleading correlation of one variable to

another, like rates that seem to move together. The rate/trend may be
result of something that has occurred, or is happening, but one
variable isn’t actually caused by the other.
• The rate or trend ay be related, but this isn’t proven by a graphic.

• Plainly state how the graphic or figure supports the point.

16:

• Most intros contextualize, state and respond to the problem.

• These steps motivate the reader and help them understand.

• The opening context establishes common ground.

• It can open up the potentially putative context, interrupting it with a

problem — like a narrative for a story. The rest of the story
elaborates on the issue, then solving it.

• Not all research papers open with common ground.

• Referencing prior research will help captivate readers easy on, so

some don’t get disturbed and lose interest — given the gravity of the
issue.

• Readers need to be captivated by acknowledging heir own partial

awareness of the real issue.

• Context explains a misunderstanding in research, or even the

problem itself.

• Appeal to readers as if they are familiar with material.

• Introduce the problem after establishing common ground. Use a

condition of incomplete knowledge or understanding — or the
consequences of that condition, which signifies a larger gap in
objective reconciliation.
• The condition can be directly stated, or phrased into a question.

• Transform the cost into a benefit by emphasizing the cost with the
problem and then emphasizing the benefits with the solution.

• Familiar problems will identify its problem and solution to readers.

• Sell the reader on its significance.

• Don’t explicitly state the consequences if readers know them. A

question will suffice here.

• Acknowledge self-limitations in research, plus that by understanding

something, it has led to an understanding of greater importance — at
least personally.

• If the solution isn’t supported in the introduction, then make a

promissory statement that it will be addressed.

• Delay the main point by stating in the intro where the paper is
headed, implying it will be addressed in the conclusion.

• A weak promise announces a vague topic.

• Readers will have to trust if the solution is added at the end, which
needs to be bolstered by an outline of the solution and/or a plan for
the argument.

• Social sciences uses data that, for example, may be heavy-handed in

the humanities.

• The more readers know, the sooner the better in introducing the
argument.

• If the problem is well known, omit common ground.

• If consequences of the problem are well known, then leave them out.

• For readers to follow your thinking before they know your solution,
offer a launching point and restate the thesis in the conclusion.

• This rhetorical pattern develops a formula for thinking, as well as for

writing.

• Don’t repeat the the name of the assignment in the first intro
sentences. Don’t begin with a dictionary entry. Don’t start grandly
because the material should prove your work is inherently grand.

• Open with a striking fact relevant to the problem.

• Use a quote in the intro only if words anticipate key terms in the rest
of the introduction.

• Open with an antidote that’s relevant and vividly illustrates the

problem.

• Conclusion can open up new questions based on your research.

• Start a conclusion with the main point and add a new significance or
application (answer ‘so what?’). Not all research needs problem
solving, sometimes it’s just standard procedure to go through the
motions and make another link in the chain, so to speak.

• Observations belong in conclusion because it suggests further

questions. Never start a conclusion with ‘in conclusion’

• Inclusions call for more research, as an intro address research

already preformed. The conclusion can keep the conversation alive.
State what more you want to understand and suggest what research
needs to be conducted.

• Write the title after the paper. This should cause anticipation for
 what’s to come.

• The title should consist of keywords in the thesis.

• The recurrence of the keywords in the thesis and body paragraphs

will display a solid application of formula.

17:

• The style of a paper/presentation should be as one colleague speaking

to another, convoluted in being dense, vague or abstract.

• Writing/speaking needs to be elegant and textured because if it can’t

be explained succinctly and coherently, it’s overkill.

• Impressionistic words are alright, but let the facts do the talking.

• The simple subject, whole subject, verb, noun and clause need to be
clear, concise and direct. Apply these principals when drafting, not as
writing, as it can stifle the flow.

• Use verbs instead of nouns for the actions of the subject, giving it
character.

• Turning a verb or adjective (describes or modifies a noun) into a

noun is called nominalization, which usually ends with a suffix
(morpheme added to create a derivative “-ataion, -fy, -ing, -ess,
-itis”). This can clutter a sentence with articles (‘a’ and ‘the’ that
define a noun phrase) and prepositions (“on, at in, under/over, by,
off”).

• Express crucial actions in verbs and make central characters the

subjects of those verbs. Subjects need to be short, specific and
concrete.
• Characters need to be concrete and verbs need to be specific. “Have,
make, do and be” are general, not specific.

• The subjects, such as variables, need to be clauses. Methods of

argument such as “If X, then Y; X because Y; When X, then Y”; etc..

• Some verbs can be left as nouns, as with particular terminology in a

specified field, although this isn’t recommended.

• Abstract nouns are not the subject ‘characters’. Abstract nouns have
their place, but not as a focal point of premises. Fewer are needed
than may be considered.

• Imply character traits rather than assign.

• Avoid verbosity — stick to the point.

• The sentence should lead with the familiar established character.

This ensures continuity. Complex info at the end of a sentence.

• Use old info before new info is introduced as a ‘player’.

• Sentence B should pick up where sentence A left off with the

character. The B sentence should contain the info.

• Only a researcher/author is entitled to categorize their research.

• Active voice is good in the introduction and discussion sections of the

manuscript, discussing old research and then offering the new work.
Passive voice is best in the methods sections because the steps are
more important than whatever personality applies them.

• Newer technical info goes last, after familiar information: when new
technical terms are introduced, when info-units that are long and
complex are presented, and when a new concept is being developed.
 • Use few words for new technical information.

• Familiarity with a subject can lead the researcher to lose perspective

of what’s old and new to their audience/readers.

• Key terms must be in the first or second sentence of a paragraph. The

last few words of the last few sentences should be weightier in
terminology.

• Any nouns ending in ‘-tion, -meant, -ence’ — need to verbs, not

subjects of verbs.

• Identify technical keywords, empath, complicated material, concepts

that will be progressively developed.

Ethics footnotes:

• Don’t caricature opposing views by distorting their delivery or

essence of their unfavorable message. Never conceal info unless one
must for safety, of course.

• Be solution oriented or you’re just wasting time. Talk is cheap. No

apologies. Examine your own understanding and responsibility to
your readers/audience. This is a compass to help reconcile a common
good when strife occurs. Integrity means a conversation of equals
who contribute to the betterment of mankind.

Library 102:

• Reference lists are a compilation of sources that one’s research is

based on, a bibliography.

• Citation mining is when a source’s reference section leads to another

source, which can even lead to further sources. This is generally for
articles and books.
• Peer-review: Reproducible means there’s enough information for
other scientists to replicate the research and experiment. Ethical
methodologies aid in the ethos of research. Accurate conclusions are
sought by reviewers to ensure the work can further research.

• Authors conduct research and write articles, reviewers are both

subject and critique experts, and journal editors decide what gets
published.

• Research must be logical, interesting, original and important. The

editor decides whether the article should be accepted and/or revised.

• Some journals reject 90 percent of received articles.

• Peer-reviewed journals report the results of studies. In healthcare,

studies must be narrow and specific.

• Abstract, intro, methods and results are the format of scholarly

articles.Abstracts are generally one to three sentences. The
introduction explains why the study was conducted and what issue it
aims to address. Writers identify where more knowledge is needed on
a subject and rationalize why their study is needed. Methods describe
the ‘how’ of the study. It needs to be very detailed so it can be easily
replicated. It can be divided into subsections. It covers the population
or subjects, data collection and analysis, and other aspects of the
protocols and design. It can also cite precedent by previous
researchers for rationale of the design. The results section lists
footnotes with no analysis. Paragraphs of texts with any tables,
figures and data-sets convey straight facts and aren’t necessarily just
visual representations of what’s already in the body paragraph. The
discussion is the author’s argument for the significance and
implications of those facts. Authors sometimes will only reinforce
previous research for consensus. Conclusions offer a concise
summary and a call for more research. References offer sources for
credibility and for other researchers to reference.
-Abstracts are 150 words tops.
• What was studied and found and why?

• A way to approach a scholarly article is by reading in this order:

Abstract, intro, conclusion/discussion, methods, results and then
references. Before reading make sure to have a clear topic statement
or research question.

• Note key terms that professionals use.

• Highlight or underline key phrases when power-reading through

intro.

• Authors provide context by referencing other studies.

• Methods give details about the participants of studies.

• Review articles are literature reviews that are published in academic

journals. These can summarize many studies at once. These aren’t
original research.

• Review articles aren’t good sources for research studies. These differ
from systematic reviews, which Cochrane produces. Systematic
reviews are more rigorous and contain less bias from authors than
review articles. NCBI articles are highly detailed and technical,
which are pure research. Systematic and literature reviews are
identified in the abstract paragraph section. A lack of methods or
results signify the article isn’t a research study.

• Analysis then assessment then evaluation.

• Normative Inversion: positing the inversion of an others’ norms as

the good to subjugate them.

• Don’t overuse bullets in PowerPoint Excel.