First thing: You need to pick a topic that you are deeply passionate about or ve

First thing: You need to pick a topic that you are deeply
passionate about or very interested in. You will be looking up sources on this
topic and formulating an annotated bibliography. You will then write the actual
argumentative essay (due at the end of the course) on the subject/topic you
have picked. But for now, you are simply giving an overview (annotation) of all
your sources in thi annotated bibliography assignment.
Annotated Bibliography: Your annotated bibliography will not
be comprehensive — that is, you will not need to look at everything that is
written about your topic.  Instead, find a minimum of five sources and
analyze them. You must use more non-internet-only sources than internet-only
sources. An “internet-only” source is a source that is only published online
and is not available in a print publication. You could feasibly find all of
your information online. Make sure the majority of sources are non-internet-only
sources. This is an easy way to establish that they are most likely reliable
sources.
Please include the following: In a paragraph before you
begin your annotated bibliography, explain what your subject and working thesis
are, then discuss how you did your research — which library did you
go to, which search engines did you use, did a librarian help you,
did you call an expert on your topic?
Writing your annotated bibliography: In the body of your
bibliography, analyze each of your sources in a separate
paragraph. Include the following information about each source:
A standard citation of your source in MLA format
The format of your source (book, magazine article, webpage,
etc.)
Where your source comes from, who produced it, and
how you got access to it
Please also answer the following questions for each source:
How accurate and reliable is your source? Is it
reliable, sufficient, and relevant? What is the purpose of the publication or
website? (Is is to sell a product? To inform? To shape opinion about an issue
or cause? Is it a corporation, an organization, or a government agency?)
How does the author’s viewpoint affect the presentation of
information and opinion? What are the author’s allegiances? Does the author
treat one side of an issue more favorably than another? Is the author’s bias
hidden or stated?
How useful will the information in the source be for your
paper?
In a
concluding paragraph, make some closing remarks about your research. Have
you found enough relevant and credible sources to satisfy the requirements of
your assignment? Are your sources thought-provoking, varied, and appropriate?
You might realize that you need to do more research, which you are unable to
find reliable information to support your thesis, or that most of the
literature out there is biased for or against your thesis. If you think you
will need to revise your thesis to reflect your research findings, this should
be stated.
Format: MLA. 12 pt. Double-spaced throughout. Times New Roman. 1-inch margins.
Pages numbers. No title page — put name, instructor, class and date on first
page at the top.
Example of what you will have for each source:
Rauch, Yvonne. M. “The Rhetoric of the Probable in
Scientific Commentaries: The Debate Over the Species Status of the Red
Wolf.” Technical Communication, Deliberative Rhetoric, and Environmental
Discourse: Connections and Directions, edited by Nancy W. Coppola, Karis,
2000, pp. 285-99. (This second line should be indented.)
Rauch analyzes the rhetorical approaches inherent in two
articles from Conservation Biology concerning the species status of
the red wolf. Instead of adhering to the popular view of scientists using only
statistical facts and non-biased observations, Rauch finds that these two
articles employ many common rhetorical strategies. In arguing about DNA and
hybridism, much attention is given to how these two opposing writers appeal to
values such as “professional authority and responsibility” (289). Conveniently organized
with section titles, Rauch’s case study in conservation rhetoric adequately
illustrates the non-empirical quality of most biological topics. Rauch fails to
adequately discuss the subjective nature of terms like “species” and in doing
so misses an opportunity to examine how contemporary conservationist rhetoric
is actually a socially constructed framework. (This paragraph should be
double-spaced.)
There isn’t a page requirement because this isn’t really a
“formal” essay. Each of your annotations should be similar in length
to the example above.
Please take a look at this example annotation: https://libguides.enc.edu/writing_basics/annotatedbib/mlaLinks
to an external site.
Before submitting, please note that you are not
able to reuse a previously written paper from high school or college. This is
called dual-submission/self-plagiarism. Even if it is your own words, the
unethical part is that you are trying to receive credit in another course for
the same exact essay/assignment that you wrote in a previous or concurrent
course. If this happens, you will automatically receive a zero for the essay
and possibly be kicked out of the course at my discretion.