1) The first reason for the importance of conversing rather than stating in academic writing is the fairly simple fact that Graff and Birkenstein state so well; “If it weren’t for other people and our need to challenge, agree with, and otherwise respond to them, there would be no reason to argue at all” (Graff and Birkenstein 4). They believe, and indeed are beginning to sway me, towards the opinion that stating an idea and backing it up is simply not enough as the only reason to ever make a point is in agreement or disagreement of someone else’s theory. Because of this obvious reason, one must at least acknowledge and explain what “they say”, leading me into my second point. In the beginning of the first chapter Graff and Birkenstein retell a situation that they found themselves in while listening to a speaker who praised a sociologist’s work, but left out any criticism or other opinions about them. The authors then tell us that “Because our speaker failed to mention what others had said about Dr X’s work, he left his audience unsure about why he felt the need to say what he was saying” (Graff and Birkenstein 20). By not addressing the problem, criticism or opinions that lead you to write a paper, give a speech, or make a point, even though you may understand it, your audience would not be in the same position, and would be very confused from the very beginning. Because of these two factors and countless more, it is ever so important to engage other’s view in academic writing.
2) While many “thesis and evidence” high school papers recommend you start with your argument, Graff and Birkenstein say that you should begin with the argument or opposition first, and then state your ideas. When concluding with their ideas on the order of academic pieces, the two writers explained that “to be responsive to others and the conversation you’re entering, you need to start with what others are saying and continue keeping it in the reader’s view” (Graff and Birkenstein 28). They, and I, agree that your thesis and evidence is extremely important, in order to make it clear, ordered, and meaningful the other person’s views or what “they say” must come first so that you and the reader know what you are responding too and what you are both agreeing and disagreeing with, and why. Furthermore, while I have used a similar organizational method in my writings before, in many of my high school papers this was not an option because either the “other side” was not given to us, or there was no argument to be made so we just stated an obvious conclusion and backed it up. While your thesis and evidence must be a strong and central component of your writing, I believe that Graff and Berkenstein’s method is more effective and I wish to utilize it to alter the way I was to write in high school.
3) After Graff and Berkenstein explain their “hit-an-run quotation” idea, explaining that you can not simply drop a quote in your writing and keep moving with your ideas, they elaborate on that, saying that “finding a relevant quote is only part of your job; you also need to present them in a way that makes their relevance and meaning clear to your readers” (Graff and Berkenstein 45). This sentence perfectly summarizes how both authors believe that you must first add context to frame your quote in a way or time that provides “relevance” (or the “top bun” in their “quotation sandwich”) while also explaining its relationship to your argument, giving it “meaning” (the “bottom bun”). These two factors were no so eloquently explained to me and my fellow peers repeatedly throughout my pre-college education, but simply gives it more credibility that it is so widely praised and utilized. This method is a very significant portion of constructing a good argumentative academic piece of writing, and I look forward to continue using it in my further studies, and beyond.
