Reno dal the discussion essay

RWR 3

RWR 3

Reno’s Writing Renditions!

The Academic Essay This package will introduce you to the fundamental features of a particular essay genre, in this case:

THE DISCUSSION ESSAY Inside you will find: 1.

A Discussion Essay Checksheet that lists the important features of this essay genre (style)

2.

An essay that demonstrates the style

3.

A question sheet to answer

4.

A text analysis to help you find the features

5.

An answer sheet.

Copyright Reno Dal 2004 (2002) Version #4

Issued 16 January 2004

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-2-

DISCUSSION ESSAY CHECKSHEET Name: Yes/No Writing Issues

Comments

Clarity - easy to understand and read Staging Devices that announce paragraph relationships Connectors to link sentences- clear & logical Coherence - clear, logical and complete Structure - ABC then [A, [B, [C then ABC

Introduction Statement of Issue- with two sides Definition of key terms Scope/Outline with clear points (A, B, C, D)

Body Text (at least 3 points) Topics in Scope Order Topic sentences clear & logical Arguments flow in a logical manner Arguments for and against

Conclusion Appropriate Staging Device SUMMARY- order as per outline Judgement- stating clearly the result of discussion

Expression Appropriateness- no confusion of meanings Academic Language not Colloquial st nd No 1 & 2 person pronouns (I, we, you, me, us, your) Word Meanings Accurate Spelling accurate Noun Groups/Nominalisation

Grammar Sentence Structures ( sub-vrb-obj) Verb-Subject agreement Use of articles appropriate (a, the) Use of singular/plural appropriate Tense usage

Document Presentation A4 paper, Stapled on top, left-hand corner Name, class & teacher on top right hand corner Margins left and right for teacher notes Double spaced for corrections Loose sheets- not in plastic folder or book Clear writing or choice of font

Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-3-

DOGS ARE A NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON FOOTPATH CLEANLINESS. DISCUSS. The presence of dogs in an urban environment has been the cause of consternation for many pressure groups while dog-lovers continue to protest that dogs remain “man’s best friend” and an essential part of civilised life. Footpath cleanliness can be defined as both the emotional and physical health conditions of thoroughfares used by pedestrians. This essay will investigate three key areas in the footpath cleanliness debate; how dogs carry disease and so pose a cleanliness risk, how non-dog owners often over-react to imagined health threats and finally, how dog owners are the real culprits in canine messiness.

The role of dogs in carrying disease cannot be denied, known as they are to carry tetanus, rabies and intestinal worms. Of these three, intestinal worms are the main concern for footpath cleanliness as these worms are transmitted in the faeces and can remain dormant in the soil or on a footpath for months on end. This is particularly true of the hydatid worm which can be fatal. Thus, so long as dogs are allowed a free rein on the street, they do pose a health risk.

However, there is often over-reaction to imagined dangers where none exist. The incidence of intestinal worms is not high and if dog-owners are properly educated, they will de-worm their dogs and thus diminish the risk considerably. Even without this education, only eight children die of hydatid worms in Australia each year and each of these has been in a rural environment, suggesting that urban dogs pose little or no threat.

In each of the above areas, dog owners are the real culprits; they are the ones who should be responsible for the dog’s health and who should control their dogs’ behaviour. If any threat exists, it remains as a result of owner failing rather than the fault of the dogs themselves. A combination of education and legal penalties has had a major role in changing dog-owner behaviour around the world, and in turn, how the dogs themselves behave. Thus it could be claimed that dogs are not a negative influence in themselves but that they only express the nature of their owners. In fact, the title of this text might more properly be characterised as “Dog owners are a negative influence on footpath cleanliness.”

Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-4-

In conclusion, this essay has clearly demonstrated that while dogs do carry disease, the risk is rural, minimal and highly dependent on owner behaviour, and therefore, not the threat it is often imagined to be. This essay has also shown that the behaviour of dog-owners can be readily modified such that dogs will pose little or no health risk. It is not dogs who pose a risk to footpath cleanliness but rather their owners who fail to be responsible for their behaviour.

Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-5-

QUESTIONS: ESSAY FEATURES (A)

What are the key points of the scope?

(B)

How many paragraphs are there in the body text?

(C)

List the references and create a bibliography.

(D)

What are the key points of the summary?

(E)

Where is the definition?

(F)

How many new ideas are presented in the conclusion?

(G)

Look at the body text and identify the subjects of the topic sentences. Note their relationship to the scope

(H)

What verb tense is used in the scope?

(I)

What verb tense is used in the summary?

(J)

How many times are the 1st & 2nd person pronouns used? (i.e.

I/we, me/us, you)

Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-6-

ANALYSIS OF TEXT

INTRODUCTION Opening Statement (The Statement of Issue) The presence of dogs in an urban environment has been the cause of consternation for many pressure groups while dog-lovers continue to protest that dogs remain “man’s best friend” and an essential part of civilised life.

Definition Footpath cleanliness can be defined as both the emotional and physical health conditions of thoroughfares used by pedestrians.

OR For the purpose of this essay, footpath cleanliness will refer to both the emotional and physical health conditions of thoroughfares used by pedestrians.

Scope This essay will investigate* three key areas in the footpath cleanliness debate; (A) how dogs carry disease and so pose a cleanliness risk, (B) how non-dog owners often over-react to imagined health threats and finally, (C) how dog owners are the real culprits in canine messiness. *(explore/discuss/present/consider)

Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-7-

BODY TEXT (Topic sentences in italics) First Paragraph (A)

The role of dogs in carrying disease cannot be denied, known as they are to carry tetanus, rabies and intestinal worms. Of these three, intestinal worms are the main concern for footpath cleanliness as these worms are transmitted in the faeces and can remain dormant in the soil or on a footpath for months on end. This is particularly true of the hydatid worm which can be fatal to humans. Thus, so long as dogs are allowed a free rein on the street, they do pose a health risk.

Second Paragraph (B)

However, there is often an

over-reaction to imagined

dangers where none exist. The incidence of intestinal worms is not high and if dog-owners are properly educated, they will de-worm their dogs and thus diminish the risk considerably. Even without this education, only eight children die of hydatid worms in Australia each year and each of these has been in a rural environment, suggesting that urban dogs pose little or no threat.

Third Paragraph In each of the above areas, dog owners are the real culprits; they are the ones who should be responsible for the dog’s health and Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-8-

who should control their dogs behaviour. If any threat exists, it remains as a result of human failing rather than the fault of the dogs themselves. A combination of education and legal penalties has had a major role in changing dog-owner behaviour around the world, and in turn, how the dogs themselves behave. Thus it could be claimed that dogs are not a negative influence in themselves but that they only express the nature of their owners. In fact, the title of this text might more properly be characterised as “Dog owners are a negative influence on footpath cleanliness.�

CONCLUSION In conclusion, this essay has clearly demonstrated that (A) while dogs do carry disease, the risk is rural, minimal and highly dependent on human behaviour, and therefore, (B) not the threat it is often imagined to be. This essay has also shown that (C) the behaviour of dog-owners can be readily modified such that dogs will pose little or no health risk.

Judgement It is not dogs who pose a risk to footpath cleanliness but rather the dog owners who fail to be responsible for their behaviour.

Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04

RWR 3: The Discussion Essay

-9-

ESSAY FEATURES The Answers (A)

What are the key points of the scope?

(A) how dogs carry disease and so pose a cleanliness risk, (B) how non-dog owners often over-react to imagined health threats (C) how dog owners are the real culprits in canine messiness.

(B)

How many paragraphs in the body text?

3=A, B, C

(C)

What are the key points of the summary?

3=A, B, C

(D)

Where is the definition?

Introduction, 2nd sentence.

(E)

How many new ideas are presented in the conclusion?

None

(F)

Look at the body text and identify the subjects of the topic sentences.

Note their relationship to the scope.

ANSWER: See underlined noun groups in text analysis. Also note the use of lexical chains - a sequence of noun groups with similar meanings.

(G)

What verb tense is used in the scope?

Future simple.

N.B. This could also be the present simple tense.

(H)

What verb tense is used in the summary?

Present perfect.

How many times are the 1st & 2nd person pronouns used? (i.e. I/we, me/us, you).

(I)

ANSWER: Not once.

(J)

Key issues: •

The use of verb tenses to signal scope and summary.

•

Use of cohesive devices.

•

Discussion essay structure.

Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002)

Issued: 16 Jan. 04