297 )” moke action ,” ʻāina paikai W r i t i n g

297 )” moke action ,” ʻāina paikai W r i t i n g

Building on the Reading Analysis Essay, the goals of the Q@I essay are to: 1) make sure your question is at issue and 2) expand the field of responses to your Q@I. By considering as many responses to your Q@I, you can better develop your line of reasoning in context with other writers on the same issue. As such, this essay will be more exploratory than argumentative.


      • 750 words
      • double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, 1” margins
      • All quotes should be cited in MLA format as follows:
        • “insert quote” (author’s last name page #).

ex: “Wielding the right language to tap into people’s sense of identity . . . can make for potent persuasion” (Sedivy 230).

      • A works cited page
      • At least 3 readings to explore responses to your Q@I:
          • “Writing Like a White Guy,” Jaswinder Bolina (pp. 182-197)
          • “Accent Neutralisation and a Crisis of Identity in India’s Call Centers,” Shehzad Nadeem (pp. 293-297)
          • “Moke Action,” ʻĀina Paikai
          • “Spanglish Moves into Mainstream,” Daniel Hernandez (pp. 167-170)
          • “Talk This Way,” Alec Wilkinson
      • A Q@I that is a policy question (it includes the word “should“)


*For this essay, take as many or as little paragraphs as you need for the following requirements. Just make sure that each paragraph has only ONE main idea.


      • Begin by stating your Q@I as a question.
      • Briefly provide context to explain why this is a question at issue and not just a question. For example, consider why this issue is significant. Why is it likely to generate disagreement?

Body paragraphs (this is the exploratory part):

      • How would the writers respond to your Q@I? It may be that they do not explicitly answer your question, but try to infer their response from their essay (remember what we read about sympathetic reading—try to put yourself into the writer’s shoes to better understand their line of reasoning).
      • Make sure there are points of contention. If everyone agrees with each other or has similar responses, the argument will not develop and no longer be at issue.


      • Now think about how your line of reasoning will build off these writers’ responses. Is there something missing in this conversation that you find more important to talk about? Can you further complicate their stances on this issue?


Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount