The Science Of Scientific Writing    Set 7     Set 7-AssessingSecond pageThird pageFourth pageExampleExercise 1Exercise 2Exercise 3Exercise 4Exercise 5Exercise 6Final Page Set 7.

Course Home

OVERVIEW: The way to well-written science

How to do the Course

 

PART I: Paragraphs and Sentences

SET A: Paragraphs: The Maps Behind Them

SET B: Paragraphs: Using Maps to Meet Readers' Expectations

SET C: Paragraph Coherence and Cohesion

SET D: Sentences

SET E: Scientific Sections (including Methods)

SET F: Scientific Sections: The Discussion

SET G : Scientific Sections: The Introduction

SET H : The Paper as a Whole


Consider this argument:

'That NASA is an equal opportunity employer is apparent from the fact that they employ female astronauts like Roberta Bondar and Mae Jemison'

Here's the map:

NASA

Let's think about the quality of the reasoning, rather than the structure.  Here's the evaluated map, which uses color coding and icons to show the evaluation:
NASA evaluated

This evaluation indicates that the basis gives good support to the reason, but the reason provides only weak support for the position - so we'll take no stand on the position.

Why did we evaluate it this way? Basically the problem is that even though NASA has hired these two women, this argument doesn't tell us whether NASA has hired more than two women, or whether NASA hires people from all races (which an 'equal opportunity employer' would do).  To see the step-by-step process of this evaluation click here.

 

 

Content of this page drawn in whole or part from the Austhink Rationale Exercises with permission from Austhink.