WRTG 391 WEEK 6 DISCUSSIONS LATEST UMUC

admin   August 6, 2018   Comments Off on WRTG 391 WEEK 6 DISCUSSIONS LATEST UMUC

WRTG 391 WEEK 6 DISCUSSIONS LATEST UMUC

 

 Visit Below Link, To Download This Course:

 

https://www.tutorialsservice.com/product/wrtg-391-week-6-discussions-latest-umuc/

 

WRTG 391 Week 6 Discussions Latest-UMUC

WRTG391

WRTG 391 Week 6 Discussions Latest-UMUC

DQ 1

Synthesizing Sources — Four Movie Reviews of “Steve Jobs”

After you complete your post due this Friday, April 21 by midnight, please be sure to post to one classmate of your choosing (preferably who has not received a response) and provide feedback explaining what is noteworthy about their post and why in a sentence regarding the classmate’s synthesis process overall.

This week, you are reading four movie reviews of the movie Steve Jobs. The reviews are from Ann Hornaday, Rex Reed, Benjamin Lee, and Anthony Lane.

After perusing the four movie reviews, please complete the following tasks:

The four reviewers do not agree on their evaluation of the acting in the film.

  1. First, analyze all four reviewers and, for each reviewer, write at least one summary sentence describing what the review says about the acting in the film. In addition, for each reviewer, quote the reviewer at least one time to demonstrate the sentiment he or she expresses about the acting.

Ann Hornaday-

Summary statement:

Quote from this reviewer to support the summary statement:

Rex Reed-

Summary statement:

Quote from this reviewer to support the summary statement:

Benjamin Lee-

Summary statement:

Quote from this reviewer to support the summary statement:

Anthony Lane –

Summary statement:

Quote from this reviewer to support the summary statement:

  1. Then, write three or four short paragraphs that synthesize all four reviewers and the points they make on the acting in the film. Remember, when synthesizing, you don’t simply list what each author says about the topic. You write about the issue of acting in the film and integrate the points of all four reviewers into that analysis.

You could group authors into categories, if possible. For example, consider the reviewers that tend to praise the acting and write about them in a paragraph or two. Then consider the reviewers that did not like the acting and write about them in a paragraph or two. Following this analysis, you might write a concluding paragraph that summarizes all four reviewers’ views on the acting.

DQ 2

Analyzing a Literature Review, Part I

This discussion thread is designed to help you see how a synthesis of sources essay, or literature review, is organized.

Please download the article, “Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect,” by Evelyn Maeder and Richard Corbett. The article is available in the e-reserves of your class.

On pages 84-85, the authors provide an introduction to the research study they conducted. You can read this section if you would like to. However, for this discussion thread, please read from page 85 “(“The CSI effect defined”) to page 94 (up to the section entitled “Method”).

Then answer the following questions:

  1. In the first section (“The CSI effect defined”), do the authors ever give you their opinion on the CSI effect? How do they support their definition and their expansion on the definition? How many different sources do they cite in this section?
  2. From pages 86-88, the authors discuss lawyers, police officers, judges, and community members. In this section, do the authors ever give you their opinion on any of the issues discussed?
  3. Examine the section entitled “Verdicts” (pp. 90-92). How do the results from the study by Shelton et al. differ from the results of the study by Kim, Barak, and Shelton? How do the results of the study by Baskin and Sommers differ from the results of other studies?
  4. As a result of having read this article, please write a few sentences about what you might have learned about a) synthesizing sources or b) the CSI effect.