- The Atlantic Crossword.
- Donald Trump's Inaugural Speech With Annotations!
- Lesson Plans Where the Red Fern Grows;
- Paella: The Ultimate Recipe Guide - Over 30 Delicious & Best Selling Recipes;
At the top of the page, write out your research question. This is the question that guides your research, and your annotations should make it clear how each source helps you answer some part of that question. For this annotated bibliography, you will make reference to 5 sources , including at least one book, one op-ed or comparable published opinion piece , and one scholarly peer-reviewed article.
In addition to a proper citation for each source following a specific format, preferably MLA , your bibliography will include an annotation of the source. These cohesive and concise paragraphs will be approximately words and will include:. Concise communication enables a wealth of material and ideas to be conveyed in a small space; therefore, an excellent annotated bibliography will not only be thorough and concise but also insightful.
I will also be looking at the way you argue for how your sources work together towards representing your topic—the bibliography should be cohesive—and whether or not you have found suitable sources. Just as important as your ability to summarize these sources, you must also demonstrate the ability to evaluate these sources and explain the difference between each source and how they work together.
At the professional level, annotated bibliographies allow you to see what has been done or explored by other scholars and where your own research or scholarship can fit into the field. Writing an annotated bibliography can help you gain a good perspective on what is being said about your topic.
Formulating a thesis helps you to base your research paper is an argument.
Donald Trump's Inaugural Speech With Annotations
The purpose of research is to state and support a thesis. In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick. Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.
Original Research ARTICLE
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting.
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.
In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.
- Footer nav.
- The Best Ways to Discipline Your Child – What Works For Real Moms - Borrow Time Book Series;
- Navigation menu?
In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving. Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits.
Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group. Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive such as patriotism, religion, democracy or negative such as terrorism or fascism concepts rather than the real issue at hand. In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.
The rhetoric of the Vietnam war: An annotated bibliography
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may effect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.
Related Rhetoric (Annotated)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved