Harper Article link https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ Des

For This or a Similar Paper Click Here To Order Now

Harper Article link https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
Description:
After you’ve read the Harper’s Letter, I’d like you to do the following. The goal is to comprehend what you’ve read and clarify what YOU think about the authors’ claims. We’re calling this annotation.
1. In 1-2 sentences, can you state the central claim of the letter? In other words, what are the authors arguing here?
2. Next, find three sub-claims (smaller claims that advance, support, or illustrate the larger one). List them here. (Remember to choose arguable claims and not statements of observable fact or hard statistics.)
3. For each of these sub-claims, I’d like you to write at least 100 words. Each of these responses should examine the sub-claim and answer one of the following questions:
(1) What have the authors neglected to consider in this claim?
(2) How might you take the claim further?
(3) What might the unforeseen consequences of this claim be?
(4) What might the unforeseen benefits of this claim be?
Below, I will include two examples of what I’m looking for. (These examples discuss monogamy–which is NOT the subject of your writing. You are to write about the Harper’s letter. I’m using a different subject, so as not to influence your thinking.)
If you’re mostly on board with the claim, you might consider adding information to help it go further. Here’s an example:
By suggesting that monogamy “helps contribute to the financial well-being of a family,” Smith is absolutely right. (It makes logical sense to believe that two working partners can create a greater sense of financial stability than a single person can.) Nevertheless, Smith neglects to consider the long-term security that comes with monogamy and, thus, doesn’t go far enough. When married partners, in particular, vow to love each other “till death do [they] part,” they are committing to a lifelong financial partnership, as well as a romantic one. Unlike roommates, who may pool their resources in the short-term, monogamous partnerships represent a financial arrangement that offers security for decades.
If you mostly differ with the claim, offer a challenge or complication that demonstrates how flawed the thinking is.
By suggesting that monogamy “helps contribute to the financial well-being of a family,” Smith is absolutely correct. However, he neglects to consider that a polyamorous arrangement might be even more beneficial. Assuming that Smith’s premise is correct, and two working partners are more financially stable than one, then what are we to say about marriages of three or four or five people? In poly networks, working partners can still contribute their paychecks to the upkeep and health of the family—and three paychecks are better than two. Thus, monogamy isn’t really the key to financial health, as Smith says. Rather, “it takes a village” of willing and helpful contributors to create security.
Note what I’ve done in both of these responses: I’ve contributed something new to the claim—something original that demonstrates my critical thinking for the reader. It’s not a matter of “agreeing” or “disagreeing”—rather, it’s about making yourself a useful voice in the conversation.
This is the hardest thing you’ll do this week; however, it shows that you’re capable of critical thinking and we can use that in all of our future writing. These questions nudge you toward the true project of academic analysis: making an original contribution to the conversation.
You’re pulling three (3) claims from the letter and writing 100 words about each. By my count, that’s at least 300 words of response.
As always, submissions should be double-spaced in Times New Roman font (size 12). Format the page to reflect standards of MLA Style: header, heading, title.
Link for Sample
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/documents/20190822MLASamplePaper.pdf

For This or a Similar Paper Click Here To Order Now