Thesis statement: DJP #6
In Chapter 8 of your SMG text, Axelrod and Cooper write that in the Justifying an Evaluation genre, “Evaluations usually assert an overall judgment if the subject in the thesis statement” (366). “To effectively support a judgment,” they write, “the criteria or standards being used to judge the subject need to be appropriate for the genre, and the writer must show that the standards are indeed being met” (366).
What they mean by this is:
Your thesis statement should blatantly state your judgment on the topic or subject you are evaluating. And the criteria by which you have chosen to evaluate your chosen topic should be based upon the research you have been doing. You are not being asked to create these criteria from your own bank of knowledge alone. Your research should be informing the criteria you are using to judge the topic.
For example: In the student essay “Evaluation of Nickel and Dimed,” Jane Kim writes “Overall, Ehrenreich does a fair job of revealing the situation of the working poor and making it clear that something must be done to relieve this ‘state of emergency.’” Kim places her thesis at the base of her introductory paragraph. She first introduces her reader to Barbara Ehrenreich and then introduces her reader to her book Nickel and Dimed. She then gives you her judgement (notice blatantly: does a fair job of revealing the situation . . . and making it clear that . . .). The rest of her thesis is giving you a glimpse into the criteria she is basing her evaluation on. AND these criteria are important to the genre of Ehrenreich’s purpose. Kim is not evaluating the text on its clarity of writing, although it may be perfectly well written. Rather, Nickel and Dimed is a text meant to bring attention to a societal problem. Kim bases her evaluation and judgment upon the criteria appropriate to the genre, and therefore the purpose, of Nickel and Dimed. (This essay can be found in the STICKS readings.)
You might also notice that in the next student essay, written by Robert Nava, shows a progression in judgment:
Having seen the faculty art show before, I have found that the pieces on display become repetitive and tiresome, with the same artists displaying new pieces with the same style and technique they’ve used every year before. However, this year the faculty artists have produced quite a few surprises, one of which is Dance VII by Gina Han. (168)
These are 2 different ways you might consider entering your Justifying an Evaluation paper. You’ve been given many examples of different ways that writers are using this genre of argument to evaluate. Look to the ways they enter their own arguments. Many begin with an introduction to the topic/subject they are in fact evaluating. Some, though, begin by showing this progression in their (your) judgment. Any of these techniques are wonderful ways to enter your argument.
In this Digital Journal Post (#6), I want you to, in writing, consider how you may enter your argument.
DJP #6 prompt:
Write a short history of your journey thus far with your topic and with your research. You have already defined your topic and considered the criteria you are considering in your evaluation. What or How have you come to those criteria? Your criteria should connect in some way to the purpose of that which you are evaluating. The research you have done so far should have given you criteria to consider. You need not choose the same or all of the criteria other writers are using. But, your criteria should be connected to the purpose of the subject you have chosen. (This short history need not be more than a paragraph. This is meant to be a “think piece.” Use it to cultivate your argument.)
Be sure to list in some way your criteria. Connect these to your evaluation and your sources. HOW have you arrived at these criteria?
What is your thesis at this point? What is your judgment? (Remember, these are one in the same.)
This DJP is due by midnight Friday, October 16.