Chapter 3 Discussion Question Response

     In chapter three of They Say/I Say, the authors Graff and Birkenstein mention what one of their colleagues calls “hit-and-run” quotations. These types of quotations are ones that are just placed in a paper without giving general information about the person who stated it or even how it is relevant to the rest of the writer's paper. “Hit-and-Run” quotations are just deposited in a paper without further explanation, it's like the writer positions the quotation there, just to speed off and not take responsibility for the slight blemish and inadequacy in the paper. I think some strategies to make certain that a writer frames a quotation would be to jot down notes about the quotation and it's relevancy to the rest of the paper as soon as they discover it or realize that it will be beneficial to be included in the their paper. I think that another simple solution to guarantee that a writer frames his or her quotation is to have someone, who may not be familiar with the topic, review it. And if they can understand the introduction of the quotation and can say that it flows well with the rest of the writer's paper, then the writer did a decent job. I believe that an effective integration of a quotation is present when it is exquisitely coherent with the rest of the paper. When a outsider who is naive to a writers topic can see the relevancy between a writers thesis and a quotation, then the quotation integration is effective.

Chapter 2 Discussion Question Response

     This book has already taught me things that I have never heard of or thought about using in my academic writing like that writing is a response to someone's claims and that templates don't, in fact, stifle the writer's creativity. However, the most important aspect of academic writing that I have learned thus far is how to properly summarize someone's opinions or arguments. I think that this balancing act is intriguing but seems quite complicated. I believe that the authors of this book are absolutely correct in saying that there needs to be a balance between the writers ideas and the ideas of the person who wrote the works that you are summarizing. If there isn't a balance in the writers paper it would be biased and there would be no controversy which, in my opinion, would make the paper boring. I think that writing with a balancing act would be difficult because you have to put your ideas and voice on the back burner, while still morphing your summary of another persons ideas so that it fits in with the main idea of your paper. On a side note, I also think that using signal verbs like extol, repudiate, and exhort really make a paper powerful and make it stand out from the rest.