You are adding additional content to your Frankl Essay draft #2, and expanding the length of the draft. Your second draft should be a minimum of 8 pages and needs to include:
A an academic-style title that is both creative and descriptive
A “hook” or first sentence that intrigues the reader and makes them want to read more about your perspective on this issue.
An introductory paragraph that introduces all three of our sources (Psychologist and Holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankl; Positive Psychologist Emily Esfahani-Smith; New York Times journalist David Shimer + Yale Professor Laurie Santos) and mentioning how they relate to each other.
A thesis statement providing three reasons why you are arguing what you are arguing as well as which side of the debate you are on. The two sides of the debate are:
Frankl would LIKE the course at Yale
Frankl would DISLIKE the course at Yale
9 body paragraphs (this breaks down to 3 about what the course at Yale does, 3 about whether Frankl would like/dislike the course, and 3 about whether Esfahani-Smith would like/dislike the course).
Remember, every body paragraphs needs to have:
A topic sentence introducing the topic of the paragraph.
2 quotes (minimum). Don’t forget to mention which part of the quoted text is important/helps support your argument, and demonstrate why.
A parenthetical in-text citation following each quote you use.
A conclusion sentence
A counter-argument paragraph (this paragraph goes between your last body paragraph supporting your argument and the conclusion paragraph. AKA: body paragraph of support, counter-argument, conclusion paragraph). Your counter -argument paragraph is where you address the fact that this isn’t a cut-and-dried, Apples vs Oranges, 0 or 1 argument–there are nuances and opinions other than your own. In your counter argument you need to address the fact that some people who would argue the opposite of your position in the debate about whether Frankl would like the course at Yale or not.
In other words, if you are arguing that Frankl would like the course, then your counterargument is where you acknowledge that some people might believe that Frankl would dislike the course.
If you are arguing that Frankl would dislike the course, then you need to acknowledge the fact that some people might believe that Frankl would like the course.
In both cases, you need to provide evidence supporting the view opposite your own, acknowledge why people might think this. Next you:
either refute this claim and show why the perspective opposite your own is misinformed/not entirely correct, or
if it is a strong point, conceded the point, but remind your reader that that is a single point in favor of the perspective opposite your own, and you have just provided several items of evidence to support your point. In other words, there is still more evidence to support your perspetive than that of the opposite side of the debate.
An academic-style conclusion paragraph.
A works cited page listing all three sources Emily Esfahani-SmithLinks to an external site., Viktor Frankl, and David Shimer Download David Shimerin alphabetical order by first letter of last name
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|