Reference no: EM131609128

DESCRIPTION: For this assignment you will write an editorial response to Jon Ronson's piece, "How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco's Life."

LENGTH: minimum 900 words and maximum 1000 words

PURPOSE: The purpose of the assignment is to compose a persuasive response to Ronson's piece based on your opinion and with support from facts. It is an exercise in:
- learning another's standpoint, how to assess it critically, and determine your own
- evaluating credible facts and support of your opinions and standpoint
- developing a strong argument with facts to support it
- concise and persuasive writing

PARAMETERS:
- Your whole assignment must be uploaded as a single .doc file, or as a single .pdf file.

- Mac users: you can convert a Pages document into a word .doc by going to the menu bar and choosing: ‘File' - ‘Export'- ‘Word'.

- Files that cannot open and/or incorrect files will receive a grade of 0.

- We will not be tracking down assignments: you must submit properly, on-time.

- Check and double check to ensure that the file is attached and is the correct file. After submitting, definitely review your submission so you can see/confirm the file.

- It is your responsibility to ensure that you have uploaded your file into Sakai. You have a maximum of five re-submission attempts BEFORE the deadline passes.

- Late assignments are not accepted will receive a grade of 0 (unless there is medical documentation).

- Assignments sent via e-mail will receive a grade of 0.

Develop a ‘thesis'
- Please don't get bogged down by the word 'thesis'.
- Think of the thesis as the main point(s)/arguments of your editorial. Ask yourself: what opinion(s) am I persuading my reader towards?
- You need to have a clear sense of your thesis before your begin writing.

Background Information
- Once you decide on your main point(s)/arguments, you will need to do some background research to support your opinion(s).

- For instance, perhaps you disagree with Ronson's treatment of public shaming on social media. What points do you disagree with specifically? What is your take on these points? Use facts to support your opinion/argument.

- Alternatively, you might agree with Ronson's examination of public shaming on social media. What points do you agree with specifically? Why these points? How can you expand on these points in support of Ronson? To do this you will need to bring in additional facts in support of your agreement with Ronson, drawn from outside sources.

- Think of it this way: facts support your opinion, and build a persuasive argument for your reader. While two is the minimum number of outside sources required, I would suggest that you gather as many facts from sources as is necessary in order to make your argument a highly persuasive one.

Introduction
- Briefly summarize the Ronson piece in a few sentences.

- Explain how your editorial offers points of departure from Ronson (in other words, explain the ways your editorial is different than his), creating an original argument.

- Briefly explain the focus of your piece. What is its point? Why should your reader continue reading? Your introduction is meant to hook the reader and draws them into your editorial.

Body
- The body of the editorial should develop three main points/arguments. Each of these three main points/arguments are to be presented as separate paragraphs (but linked to each other, as the argument should flow).

- Each point/argument must be clearly outlined and supported by facts (from sources).

- Organize your points from weakest to strongest. Your points get stronger as you go on.

Conclusion
- In a few sentences, briefly reiterate the main arguments of your editorial. A reiteration is not a restatement: you are not just repeating yourself - you are emphasizing clearly.

- Your conclusion is one last attempt to convince the reader of your 'thesis' (i.e. the main point/argument of your editorial). You are making a last attempt to win them over.

- At the end, you want to keep the reader hooked and offer them something: a call to action, food for thought, or a contextualization of the argument in a larger context.