Essay Topic

Thesis:

Even though many see motocross as a very dangerous sport, I will show how it's safer than most contact sports.

I will start off by introducing the sport of motocross. I'll state rules and regulations and the importance of training and practicing. I'll compare it throughout the essay to contact sports, such as football, that have a higher percentage of injuries per year. I'll compare not only the percentage of injuries, but the requirements for the sports, the movements, actions, etc.  

Journal #6

AB pg. 608



1. All three writers use the article in very different ways. The first writers uses the article in a more analytical manner, dissecting the causes of this violence by summarizing the article. The second writer supports the control of arms and writes to persuade. The last writer uses McGrath’s article to show how humans constantly change how crime is defined. The first writer quoted and summarized because McGrath’s essay works as a strong point in his/her essay. The second writer paraphrased enough so the text in McGrath’s essay would fit his/her thesis. The third writer did a little bit of both, since McGrath’s article served as a point for his/her essay.

2. The first writer would probably have more specific notes, jotting down points, highlighting possible examples, and what not from McGrath’s article. The second writer would probably raise questions from McGrath’s points. The third writer would do some of both, since he/she stands more in the middle ground.

3. All of them have a thesis and all of them back up the information they’re handing you with research and strong, clear points. They use the information they’re given from McGrath’s essay correctly and throughout their essays they respond to their thesis.

Journal Number 5

AB pg. 241

Journal #5

1. She uses the surprising-reversal strategy by first presenting the problem and what she thought the solution would be, then she shows facts proving that what she thought the solution was, in reality, isn’t so great.
Shannon poses the question whether hydrogen fuel-cell cars are the solution to global warming and the scarcity of oil.
The common or popular answer would be yes; hydrogen fuel-cell cars will save the world.
The surprising answer is no, they aren’t as great as thought.

2. Shannon uses a handful of different sources to prove the popular thought wrong, and to support the idea that hydrogen fuel-cell cars are defective and still harmful, emphasizing that they’re also still a work in progress.

3. I believe her essay is more informative than persuasive because she presents a problem, the popular solution, and refutes it with facts. She doesn’t apply her personal opinion to try to persuade the reader.