Looking at this paper, there are several elements that are evident as far as formatting is concerned. The first is use of italics like in the statement 'ask them on their behalf -' to emphasize and / or expound on a point. The researcher also uses different fonts to differentiate examples from the rest of the works. There is usage of bold letters for headings for example 5.4.2 Support Your Claim with Reasons and Evidence, and use of capital letters for the same purpose like HOW A WARRANT WORKS IN A CASUAL CONVERSATION. There is use of bullet points for clarity of a point with more than one reason or support statements. Lastly use of subscript is also evident in the work like in this example: It's 50 below zero reason so you should wear a hat. claim
Buy SQ3R essay paper online
a) Why is the process of sorting one's notes into logical elements important in any given research?
b) How does one organize the aforementioned elements into a coherent format?
c) Why does there exist a difference between the definition the word 'argument' is given in the media and what it ought to be in the research work?
d) Which set of wrong questions do researchers ask while formulating their hypothesis?
e) How does one tell they have written a good hypothesis?
f) What is the difference between Reason and Evidence?
g) How does one respond wisely to issues that arise from their dissertations and thesis?
h) How do people warrant their work?
i) How does one test the extent of relevance that a reason has to a said claim?
j) How can one make their readers and audience accept their claims?
Reading was done four times. The first reading was for the researcher to gain insight as to what the writer was claiming. This led to the second reading that was done with a pen and a book to jot down possible questions to ask about the paper for better understanding. An old Chinese saying states that 'What I Hear I forget, what I See, I remember, but what I Do, I understand'. The researcher had to take an active role in compiling the questions. The third reading was to try and find credible answers to the questions formulated and try to make necessary changes to the questions if any. The last reading was to ensure that there was comprehensive coverage of the whole paper by the questions asked.
For the argument to flow, haphazard notes need to be arranged into logical elements hence creating ground for concrete argument. From the sketches that are made, one can then organize them as per the reasons and the support structure of these reasons. This is then followed by formulation of a draft that will guide one through the rest of the paper. The definition that is portrayed in the media of the term argument is more of an abrasive form since there is some sort of competition which is not the case for the definition adopted for research work, which require evidence beyond no reasonable doubt.
The following set of questions is lethal to a successful research: -
i) What are you claiming?
ii) What support reasons are you providing?
iii) Is there evidence that ensures those reasons are supported?
iv) What is your response to alternative views as well as objections?
v) How relevant are you reasons as far as your claims are concerned?
One knows that they have presented a good hypothesis if the hypothesis agrees with the claims made. Reason is taken as abstract thinking that requires evidence for support of its claims. On the other hand, evidence is tangible collection outside of the mind that requires no further support for its verification. For the issues that crop up from the dissertation, it is advisable to respond creatively to disagreements and practice imagining. To warrant one's work, there has to be coupling of both reason and claim in a more logical and coherent manner. To test the relevance of a reason, start with reason then claim and finish with the 'when --- then' pattern.
For a claim to be accepted, it must be warranted, true and valid while ensuring any limiting condition that would possibly derail application of the claim is dealt with.
This has partly been this researcher's approach especially with the questions that helped read through thoroughly. This approach is much better than what this researcher was used to using in the past.
The review was done by re-reading as need arose, to ensure that the information read had sunk well and that the whole paper was comprehensively covered. The review was done some hours later since the information was still fresh in the brain before memory loss since it is known that human memory of events diminishes exponentially. Most of the information gathered previously was retained just some additives that came in handy to make things better. This method will be applied again in future since it encourages working hard to accomplish the best one desires.