December 8, 2022

Please complete questions of article understanding by Read A

Please complete questions of article understanding by

Read Ariel Gore’s article “TV Can Be a Good Parent” and apply the two-step method to identify the argument and the support for the argument. (Remember: read actively by annotating the article, underlining and marking the argument and support as you read.

Based on your comprehension of the article and the argument concepts presented in this activity, answer the following questions attached with the document.

DLA3.docx

READ 82 DLA 1

READ 82 DLA 3 7

Name:

Student ID Number: Click or tap here to enter text.

Course Title: Read 83

Instructor: Professor Hotra

Date: 12/5/2022

Read 82

3. Understanding an Author’s Argument

This activity connects to the following Student Learning Outcome (SLO):

Demonstrate the ability to differentiate between general and specific ideas in order to determine the author’s stated or implied main idea (literal and inferential comprehension) in text at Long Beach City College’s proficiency level.

Watch this video to learn how to complete a DLA.

This DLA, including about 15-20 minutes to meet with a tutor, is designed to be completed in approximately one hour. Your thinking process and the quality of your work should be of the utmost importance to you. Concentrate on your end result, not the time. It is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, you are encouraged to take more time. Remember to annotate the activity.

Annotating and Marking

Part of reading actively involves the process of annotating and marking the text. As you read through this entire activity, write down questions, underline and/or highlight important points, make a note of new vocabulary, and include additional margin notes that you may refer to during the review session. For help annotating this activity, see the following video tutorials: A Quick Guide to Annotation, Using Word: Installing and Annotating, and Annotating with Adobe.

Purpose:

This activity will help you to recognize and understand an author’s written argument.

Relevance:

Are you a critical thinker? Do you accept the thinking of others or do you think for yourself? Do you collect information, identify important questions, and systematically search for answers? Can you justify what you believe? Critical thinkers know how to effectively search, compare, analyze, clarify, evaluate, and conclude.

In all of your reading in college, and for the rest of your life, you will want to read with a questioning mind. One important reason for this questioning approach is that it will enable you to recognize a sound argument (and just as importantly, an unsound argument) in your reading material. (A sound argument is one in which the reasons you provide actually do support the argument you are making.) If you do not critically evaluate controversial written material, you run the risk of being misled or manipulated by the author. This DLA will give you practice identifying the argument which is the first step to evaluating an author’s written argument.

Outcomes:

Within your Read 82 class instruction you have been learning the critical reading skills of distinguishing facts from opinions, making logical inferences and drawing conclusions, and determining the author’s purpose, tone, point of view, and intended audience. In DLA # 3, you will be building upon these skills in order to identify an author’s argument.

Part I: Sample Lesson

Instructions:

Read through the sample lesson below. You will be instructed in the process of how to identify an author’s argument. When you are ready, apply what you have learned about the two-step method to your reading of the longer article, entitled, “TV Can Be a Good Parent” by Ariel Gore.

Sample Lesson:

The Process of Identifying an Author’s Argument

The following two-step procedure will assist you in identifying an author’s argument:

1. Identify the issue and the argument

2. Identify the support for the argument

Take a moment to read the following paragraph. Then, using this excerpt as a guide, follow the lesson as it defines terms and systematically instructs you in the two-step method.

There should be a federal law banning smoking in restaurants and all public places. To begin with, the health risks associated with smoking and breathing secondhand smoke have been documented in the research literature for years. Also, the Journal of Medicine confirms that people with respiratory problems, young children, and older people face additional risks from being around smoke. In addition, a 2004 survey by Public Research, Inc. reveals that more than 80 percent of nonsmokers report that the smell of cigarette smoke in a restaurant interferes with the enjoyment of their meal. Many commented that they resent having their meal needlessly ruined by someone else’s thoughtlessness. Finally, according to etiquette authority Judith Martin (“Miss Manners”), it is simply common courtesy for smokers to refrain from imposing their smoke on those who do not smoke.

Step One: Identify the Argument

When we use the word “argument” in most situations, we speak about a heated dispute between different parties. In this DLA we are defining “argument” as the author’s position on a controversial issue.

Before we can identify the argument we must first identify the issue. The issue is the controversial, or at least arguable, topic the author is discussing. Every day we read and hear about issues on which people disagree. A few examples of such issues would be:

“Should abortion be made illegal?”

“How should health care be reformed to meet the needs of the United States’ citizens?”

“Is capital punishment a moral and effective deterrence of capital crimes?” (Note: Capital crimes usually involve an act of murder.)

The issue in an argument is what the author is trying to convince us to believe or do. To determine the issue, ask, “What controversial topic is the author discussing?”

An author’s argument is an assertion or set of assertions that supports a conclusion and is intended to persuade . (An assertion is a positive statement, declaration, or claim). The author’s position is a reflection of his/her point of view or opinion. When authors favor something, we often say they are “pro” whatever the issue is (example: pro-election reform). When authors oppose something they are often described as “anti” whatever the issue is (example: anti-election reform). Before you can evaluate the material an author is presenting, you must determine which side of the issue the author favors.

Refer to the sample paragraph.

· Issue: What controversial topic is this passage about?

Should there be a federal law banning smoking in restaurants and all public places?

· Author’s argument: What is the author’s position on this issue?

There should be a federal law banning smoking in restaurants and all public places.

Step Two: Identify the Support for the Argument

The points of support for an argument are the reasons or evidence offered as proof of the position being argued. An argument can be supported by several different kinds of supporting details. Support can include research findings, case studies, personal experience or observation, examples, facts, anecdotes, comparisons, analogies, and expert testimony or opinion.

In the sample article the author offers the following support:

· There are health risks associated with smoking and with breathing secondhand smoke.

· People with respiratory problems, young children, and older people, face additional risks from being around smoke.

· A large percentage of nonsmokers report that smoke interferes with their enjoyment of a restaurant meal.

· It is common courtesy (good etiquette) not to impose smoke on others.

Part II: Applying the Two-Step Method

Instructions:

Read Ariel Gore’s essay “TV Can Be a Good Parent” and apply the two-step method to identify the argument and the support for the argument. ( Remember: read actively by annotating the article, underlining and marking the argument and support as you read.) Then, during an appointment with a tutor, you will review your answers and evaluate your critical reading and thinking skills. Read 82 students must submit the reviewed packet to the instructor.

“TV Can Be a Good Parent”

By Ariel Gore

Let me get this straight.

The corporations have shipped all the living-wage jobs off to the developing world, the federal government has “ended welfare” and sent poor women into sub-minimum wage “training programs” while offering virtually no child-care assistance, the rent on my one-bedroom apartment just went up to $850 a month, the newspapers have convinced us that our kids can’t play outside by themselves until they’re 21 and now the American Academy of Pediatrics wants my television?

I don’t think so.

Earlier this month, the AAP released new guidelines for parents recommending that kids under the age of 2 not watch TV. They say the box is bad for babies’ brains and not much better for older kids. Well, no duh.

When I was a young mom on welfare, sometimes I needed a break. I needed time to myself. I needed to mellow out to avoid killing my daughter for pouring bleach on the Salvation Army couch. And when I was at my wits’ end, Barney the Dinosaur and Big Bird were better parents than I was. My daughter knows that I went to college when she was a baby and preschooler. She knows that I work. And, truth be told, our television set has been a helpful co-parent on rainy days when I’ve been on deadline. Because I’m the mother of a fourth-grader, Nickelodeon is my trusted friend.

There was no TV in our house when I was a kid. My mother called them “boob tubes.” But that was in the 1970s. My mother and all of her friends were poor — they were artists — but the rent she paid for our house on the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula was $175 a month and my mother and her friends helped each other with the kids. The child care was communal. So they could afford to be poor, to stay home, to kill their televisions. I, on the other hand, cannot.

Now the AAP is saying I’m doing my daughter an injustice every time I let her watch TV. The official policy states that “Although certain television programs may be promoted to [young children], research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant caregivers for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Therefore, exposing such young children to television programs should be discouraged.”

Maybe my brain has been warped by all my post-childhood TV watching, but I’m having a little trouble getting from point A to point B here. Babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with actual people. I’m with them on this. “Therefore, exposing such young children to television programs should be discouraged.” This is where they lose me. I can see “Therefore, sticking them in front of the TV all day and all night should be discouraged.” But the assumption that TV-watching kids don’t interact with their parents or caregivers is silly. Watching TV and having one-on-one interactions with our kids aren’t mutually exclusive.

I’ve been careful to teach my daughter critical thinking in my one-woman “mind over media” campaign. It started with fairytales: “What’s make-believe?” and “How would you like to stay home and cook for all those dwarves?” Later we moved on to the news: “Why was it presented in this way?” and “What’s a stereotype?” But if you think I was reading “Winnie the Pooh” to my toddler when I thought up these questions, think again. I was relaxing with a cup of coffee and a book on feminist theory while Maia was riveted to PBS.

I read to my daughter when she was little. We still read together. But even a thoughtful mama needs an electronic baby sitter every now and again. Maybe especially a thoughtful mama.

Not surprisingly, the television executives feel there’s plenty of innocuous programming on television to entertain young kids without frying their brains. “It’s a bunch of malarkey,” said Kenn Viselman, president of the itsy bitsy Entertainment Co., about the new policy. Itsy bitsy distributes the British show “Teletubbies,” which is broadcast on PBS. While I prefer Big Bird to Tinky Winky, I have to agree with him when he says, “Instead of attacking shows that try to help children, the pediatricians should warn parents that they shouldn’t watch the Jerry Springer show when kids are in the room.”

The AAP’s policy refers to all television, of course, but it’s hard not to feel like they’re picking on PBS. “Teletubbies” is the only program currently shown on non-cable television marketed toward babies and toddlers. Just two weeks ago, the station announced a $40 million investment to develop six animated programs for preschoolers. The timing of the AAP’s report is unfortunate.

Cable stations offer a wider variety of kid programming. Take for example Nick Jr., an offshoot of the popular Nickelodeon channel. On weekdays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., the programming is geared specifically toward the preschool set. “Our slogan for Nick Jr. is ‘Play to Learn’,” Nickelodeon’s New York publicity manager, Karen Reynolds, told me. “A child is using cognitive skills in a fun setting. It’s interactive. With something like “Blues Clues,” kids are talking back to the TV. They are not just sitting there.”

Still, the station has no beef with the new AAP policy on toddlers. “Nick Jr. programs to preschool children ages 2 to 5, but we are aware that children younger than 2 may be watching television,” said Brown Johnson, senior vice president of Nick Jr. “We welcome a study of this kind because it encourages parents to spend more time bonding and playing with their children.”

In addition to telling parents that young children shouldn’t watch television at all and that older kids shouldn’t have sets in their bedrooms, the AAP is recommending that pediatricians ask questions about media consumption at annual checkups. The difference between recommending less TV-watching and actually mandating that it be monitored by the medical community is where this could become a game of hardball with parents. What would this “media file” compiled by our doctors be used for? Maybe television placement in the home will become grounds for deciding child custody. (“I’m sorry, your honor, I’ll move the set into the bathroom immediately.”) Or maybe two decades from now Harvard will add TV abstention to their ideal candidate profile. (“‘Teletubbies’ viewers need not apply.”) Better yet, Kaiser could just imprint “Poor White Trash” directly onto my family’s medical ID cards. Not that those cards work at the moment. I’m a little behind on my bill.

I called around, but I was hard-pressed to find a pediatrician who disagreed with the academy’s new policy. Instead, doctors seemed to want their kids to watch less TV, and they’re glad to have the AAP’s perhaps over-the-top guidelines behind them. “If all your kids did was an hour of Barney and ‘Sesame Street’ a day, I don’t think that the academy would have come out with that statement,” said a pediatrician at La Clinica de la Raza in Oakland, Calif., who asked not to be named. “It’s not the best learning tool.” And he scoffs at the notion of “interactive” TV. “It’s not a real human interaction. When you’re dealing with babies and toddlers, this screen is an integral part of their reality. You want kids to be able to understand interaction as an interaction. It’s like the Internet. We’re getting to a place where all of your relationships are virtual relationships.”

Fair enough.

I’m not going to say that TV is the greatest thing in the world for little kids — or for anyone. I’m not especially proud of the hours I spend watching “Xena: Warrior Princess,” “The Awful Truth” and “Ally McBeal.” Mostly I think American television is a string of insipid shows aired for the sole purpose of rounding up an audience to buy tennis shoes made in Indonesian sweatshops.

But it seems that there is a heavy middle-class assumption at work in the AAP’s new policy — that all of us can be stay-at-home moms, or at least that we all have partners or other supportive people who will come in and nurture our kids when we can’t.

I say that before we need a policy like this one, we need more — and better — educational programming on TV. We need to end the culture of war and the media’s glorification of violence. We need living-wage jobs. We need government salaries for stay-at-home moms so that all women have a real career choice. We do not need “media files” in our pediatricians’ offices or more guilt about being bad parents. Give me a $175 a month house on the Monterey Peninsula and a commune of artists to share parenting responsibilities, and I’ll kill my TV without any provocation from the AAP at all. Until then, long live Big Bird, “The Brady Bunch” and all their very special friends!

Ariel Gore is a journalist, novelist, nonfiction author, and teacher. She is the founding editor/publisher of Hip Mama, an Alternative Press Award-winning publication covering the culture and politics of motherhood.

Instructions:

Based on your comprehension of the article and the argument concepts presented in this activity, answer the following questions:

1. What is the issue being discussed?