Project 2 Outline

In the following post, I will outline my essay for Project 2 utilizing "The Sections of the Paper" in the Writing Public Lives textbook.

O'Shea, Pete. "Writing Tools" 4/8/2011 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

In the introduction part of my outline, I focused on the book's advice to "set up [my] particular perspective or reading of the text" (122). To satisfy this, I don't believe the introduction has to be very long. I will introduce what is necessary to understand the article and my position, and then proceed with my thesis. I left the body part of my outline much more vague. I find that rhetorical writing is best to not strictly outline the details before you write the analysis itself. In the conclusion, I also followed the book's advice to "think about the implications" of the analysis (125).

Project 2 Outline - The case against circumcision by George Hill

Introduction

1. Context: history of circumcision -- popularity in modern and ancient times (?) BRIEF
• author's extensive involvement/investment in argument 
• argument's development in terms of medical development
• etc.
2. Thesis
• As a medically and religiously encouraged practice, author George Hill argues that society's blind approval of the tradition of circumcision has been the result of a dangerous misconstruction of medical facts. He emphasizes the ignorance in the public opinion through precisely placed sarcasm and an overall condescending tone. Though Hill appears credible in his vast knowledge of the debate, he critically impairs his argument by speaking so disparagingly to his audience. 
• I may still use my second thesis statement 

Body

(separation of paragraphs is not accounted for in this outline)

1. Claim #1 - Sarcasm and its effects
• Multiple sources of evidence
• Hill lessens his credibility in this light as he appears more riotous than medically concerned.
2. Claim #2 - Accusing the audience
• evidence
• Hill appears to not be rhetorically defending his disapproval of circumcision, but moreso just having an outburst over the general 'lack of reaction' the practice has received.
3. Claim #3 - Organization of argument
• Hill organizes the essay in a no-nonsense pattern. He includes subcategories, such as ____, ____, ____ as a chance to provide facts about circumcision in order to emphasize the risks.
• Though this is outwardly beneficial to his argument, each category is laid out in a condescendingly "you're stupid" format. Furthermore, each category, on one level or another accuses the audience of being stupid.

Conclusion

1. Why does this matter in context of the project?
• Remember to answer the question/goal of the project: to depict how an argument is constructed in your discipline 
2. Concluding statement -- rephrase the thesis
• Though Hill is thorough in his depiction of the unethical, unsafe, and unjustified practice of circumcision, he loses credibility in his equally unethical and unjustified treatment of his "ignorant" audience. 

**Note: I kept my outline very brief. In all honesty, I don't find them very helpful in my particular writing process. I find my writing "turns out" better when it involves me simply sitting down and writing. A brief outline helps me in the way that I need, by simply reminding me of the purpose and overall goal of whatever I am writing.

Reflection 

Reading Isabel and Savannah's posts, I saw an outline in its best, most efficient form. They were both very thorough and practically had their entire essay written simply within the contents of their outlines. I view outlines very differently from this viewpoint. They have never been particularly helpful to me as more than a very simplistic and concise roadmap of where your essay will be headed. I didn't include any direct textual evidence (unlike Isabel and Savannah) as I find it is easier to find the right textual evidence whilst writing the essay itself. It was interesting to see the obvious differences in our outlining processes.