Academic english iii

1. Academic english iii November 28th 2012

2. Today • Review last class (TAXES + DUCTT) • Referencing

3. Make-up Class Next Tuesday 4:30 – 5:30 Location: Here. Come prepared with any questions you would like to ask about writing.

4. TAXES opic sentence ssertion(Statements that present your idea) E amples(specific passage, facts, stats, details) xplanation(commentary that shows how the examples support your assertion). T A X E S ignificance(commentary that shows how the paragraph supports the thesis statement). This acronym gives you a formula for building body paragraphs.

5. Thesis statement Simply put, the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties; in reality, the Act exposes Americans to potential abuses of power by creating an environment that encourages government corruption, secrecy, fraud and discrimination while using “national security” as a pretense for violating basic Constitutional rights like privacy and free speech. As the century drags on, it is becoming painfully obvious that the Patriot Act has actually moved the United States further away from an ideal democratic society since its passage in October of 2001.

6. Paragraph 3 Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for a sense of security.

7. Topic sentence Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for a sense of security.

8. Assertion Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for a sense of security.

9. eXamples Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for a sense of security.

10. Explanation + Significance Ever since 1776, when American colonists first abandoned their ties with Britain to create an independent nation, American citizens have always cherished basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (United States). But after the unpredictable events of September 11, 2001, many citizens began to feel that they should give up some of their cherished rights in order to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and avoid future tragedies. An overwhelming sense of national unity overtook the country and Americans united to face the newly discovered threat of terrorism in a modern age. The President’s approval rating increased from 54% to 86%—its highest level ever—in a matter of days (Ruggles). The American people rallied behind the Federal government and provided support. Tragically, Congress drafted the Patriot Act and decreed that it would be the solution to America’s problems. According to Congress, the Patriot Act would protect America from its enemies who operated on American soil. Many Americans unquestionably accepted the Act to avoid the risk of being labeled “unpatriotic.” However, thousands of far-seeing Americans publicly questioned the actions of the government, but their cries were not heard. When the House of Representatives sent the Patriot Act to the Senate, it passed with a vote of 96-1. Peter Justice put it best when he said that “. . . the climate of fear in the weeks after the September 11 attacks and the haste with which the Patriot Act was passed allowed some of its more controversial aspects to escape adequate congressional scrutiny.” Clearly, the “fear frenzy” that took place after the September 11 attacks caused Americans to sacrifice essential civil rights in exchange for a sense of security.

11. Paragraph 5 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

12. Topic sentence There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

13. Assertion There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

14. eXamples There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

15. Explanation + Significance There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

16. DUCTT D U C T T evelopment nity oherence ransitions opic sentence This acronym will remind you to put these features into your body paragraphs.

17. Paragraph 5 There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

18. Thesis statement Simply put, the Patriot Act fails to secure American liberties; in reality, the Act exposes Americans to potential abuses of power by creating an environment that encourages government corruption, secrecy, fraud and discrimination while using “national security” as a pretense for violating basic Constitutional rights like privacy and free speech. As the century drags on, it is becoming painfully obvious that the Patriot Act has actually moved the United States further away from an ideal democratic society since its passage in October of 2001.

19. Development There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

20. Unity There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

21. Coherence + Transitions There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

22. Topic Sentence There is no question that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Act violates the fundamental American ideal of “checks and balances” on government power. Normally, the government cannot conduct a search of a citizen’s residence without obtaining a warrant and demonstrating a reason to believe that the suspect has committed (or may commit) a crime. But the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct searches without a warrant—for just about any reason. If the FBI is ever questioned about such activity, shrewd FBI officials simply state that the investigation is crucial to national security, and they are permitted to continue with the operation. In more recent years the situation has improved somewhat, however. Now, before conducting a search, the FBI must obtain a warrant from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Ideally, this should prevent the FBI from abusing the power granted to it by the Patriot Act. However, in its twenty-two years of existence the FISA court has only rejected six search warrants out of the 18,747 requested since the court’s creation (“Newstrack”). This means that if the FBI decides it wants to spy on a certain American citizen, it will most likely be able to do so, even without sufficient evidence.

24. Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012) Giving references can be confusing. Knowing HOW to reference can be more confusing. i.e., 1. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. According to the Department of Transportation report from last year, there were over 16,000 accidents in Daegu alone last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both. 2. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. In Daegu alone, there were over 16,000 accidents last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both.

25. Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012) 1. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. According to the Department of Transportation report from last year, there were over 16,000 accidents in Daegu alone last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both. 2. Traffic accidents have become a huge problem in the Gyeongbuk region. In Daegu alone, there were over 16,000 accidents last year (Department of Transportation, 2012). This number highlights the fact that there must be a problem with Daegu’s road system, drivers, or both. - In fact, both of these are acceptable. This is a statistic, so indicating in the text WHOSE statistic it is can add strength to the point.  1. On the other hand, the citation is often enough.  2

26. Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012) 1. The cause of this extremely high number of traffic accidents is most likely the city’s road system. In his book, which is called Crazy City, Crazy Roads, Manti Golsen concludes that the roads in Daegu are too narrow, which causes cars to collide at a higher rate than in other cities (Golsen, 2012). 2. The cause of this extremely high number of traffic accidents is most likely the city’s road system. Daegu’s roads are too narrow, causing cars to collide at a higher rate than in other cities (Golsen, 2012). - Again, both are acceptable, BUT… …It is not necessary to give a full listing of the author’s name and book title. It takes up a lot more text.  2 is better for simplicity and clarity.

27. Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012) 1. The food in the Gyeongbuk region is another reason people are moving away. Research has found that food in this part of Korea is too spicy for most people. The Spicy Food Information Organization (SPFIO) indicates that “food in Gyeongbuk has a spice rating of 9.5, which is 2 points over the national average of 7.5” (SPFIO, 2011: 9).With such a high spice rating, it appears difficult for people to regularly eat the food in the Gyeongbuk region. 2. The food in the Gyeongbuk region is another reason people are moving away. Research has found that food in this part of Korea is too spicy for most people, with food in this region having “a spice rating of 9.5, which is 2 points over the national average of 7.5”(SPFIO, 2011: 9).With such a high spice rating, it appears difficult for people to regularly eat the food in the Gyeongbuk region. These examples demonstrate two things: - Full quote vs. a partial quote. - Mentioning the source in the text vs. just giving a citation. Which form you choose depends on how important you feel the source is.

28. Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012) The first stage of the meditative process focuses on the event itself as opposed to scripture, which for Milton problematizes memory.  Further, evidence suggests that Milton understood exactly what it meant to retreat, Ignatian-style, into the inner self for private imaginings:  “It is better therefore to contemplate the Deity, and to conceive of him, not with reference to human passions, that is, after the manner of men, who are never weary of forming subtle imaginations respecting him,  but  after the manner of Scripture, that is, in the way wherein God  has  offered himself  to our contemplation; . . .” (CE xiv. 33). • This quote is longer than 4 lines. • Formatting changes in this case.

29. Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012) • The first stage of the meditative process focuses on the event itself as opposed to scripture, which for Miltonproblematizes memory. Further, evidence suggests that Milton understood exactly what it meant to retreat, Ignatian-style, into the inner self for private imaginings:  It is better therefore to contemplate the Deity, and to conceive of him, not with reference to human passions, that is, after the manner of men, who are never weary of forming subtle imaginations respecting him, but after the manner of Scripture, that is, in the way wherein God has offered himself to our contemplation; . . . (CE xiv. 33). If a quote is longer than 4 lines: - Indent (on both sides) and remove the quotation marks.

30. Referencing – “am I doing it right?! ” (KAC Student, 2012) General tips for referencing: - If you can paraphrase instead of quoting (especially longer passages), do it. - Make sure that the reference actually fits into what you are saying. - Aim for simplicity in your writing (you don’t have to list the author(s)’s full name(s) and the title of the book when you reference it. Often, the citation will be enough. Interested readers can check your references section for more information.

32. Thesis statement: Ice cream is a dangerous food in many ways. Topic sentence: The crime rate increases when ice cream is popular. Assertion: Example/support: crime rate increases by 15% in summer compared to winter. Commentary/significance:

33. Example Thesis :Ice cream is a dangerous food in many ways. The crime rate increases when ice cream is popular. Ice cream’s popularity during the summer months leads people to steal ice cream so they can sell it at a higher price on the black market. During the fall and winter months, the crime rate stands at 100 crimes per 10,000 people. However, as the weather turns warmer, and summer approaches, this rate increases to 115 crimes per 10,000 people, an increase of 15% compared to the winter crime rate. While most types of crimes see no significant seasonal differences, theft is an exception. More specifically, it is the theft of ice cream that is responsible for this increased crime rate. Ice cream is the only item that has a rate of theft that varies with the season; decreasing in the winter and increasing in the summer. Because ice cream is so popular in the summer, the demand for ice cream reaches a high point, which inspires thieves looking for quick money to steal ice cream, which they then sell on the ice cream black market at a mark-up of 50%. This makes life dangerous for ice cream delivery men, who are constantly attacked by would-be thieves looking to steal the ice cream in their trucks. Clearly, ice cream’s effect on crime rate demonstrates the danger this food poses.