Example: (Continued from the passage in Strategy #2) In her recent address to the Animated Cosmology Conference, Dr. Anna Mey, President of the Association for Studies of Animated Physics (ASAP), postulated that “Contrary to prevailing opinion, animated villains are no less capable of wreaking havoc than animated heroes are of avoiding it” (Mey 202). She goes on to explain, “As we all know, Road Runner displays only a slightly prolonged capacity to hang in mid-air than does Coyote. Scientifically, there is no reason to believe
81 that the two move through the physical world differently … . We must, therefore, reassess the mechanism whereby he manages to elude Coyote … . It is my firm conviction that the physical laws of the animated universe are strangely different than our own, and operate according to much different laws than we have yet understood or appreciated” (Mey 210). As Mey astutely points out, Toonster has failed to appreciate the possibility that Coyote is not a bumbling evil villain wi th “an edge,” but occupies, along with Road Runner, an animated universe that runs according to a set of physical laws entirely alien to our own. In this way, Coyote is subject to the same physical forces as Road Runner, leading us to recognize that his inability to win the day is owing to his inferior intellect, not to his inability to overcome his physical challenges in the face of Road Runner’s superior physical capacity. For this reason, it is important to recognize the possibility that Road Runner is not, after all, invincible, as Coyote may someday become clever enough to outwit him. Strategy VI: Find Your Own Role in the Conversation (pp. 278-279) What to Do: Select a passage from a source that you are in agreement with. Treat it as a quote and write a strong lead-in for it. Then, work out from the quotation with your own reasoning to either: 1. Apply the Quote to a new context of your own choosing. Then, do as many of the following as possible: a. Find a lesser point that the author overlooks and try to move your argument in that direction. Articulate why/how/to what extent this point is important, and what is at stake in the author overlooking it. b. Find a key term that the author does not define clearly and work to construct a stronger definition for it that illuminates your central point. c. Work to construct a clearer context for the issue — if the author has not provided adequate background/context for the issue. 2. Seek other perspectives on the source. (This could be a second source that has an equally — or lesser — attractive answer that you wish to consider as well). a. This could be reviews of your source published in scholarly journals, or it could be another source that addresses a similar question, point, or issue.