An Informative Introduction
A Probing Analysis
A Fair and Impartial Presentation
A Clear, Logical Organization
Use the following to help you analyze and evaluate how writers seeking common ground employ the genre’s basic features. The strategies they typically use to make their essays insightful and impartial are illustrated below with examples from the readings in this chapter as well as sentence strategies you can experiment with later as you write your own common ground essay.
AN INFORMATIVE INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE AND OPPOSING POSITIONS
Read first to see how the writer presents the issue. Consider, for example, whether the writer assumes that readers are already well informed about the issue or need background information, and whether they will be interested in the issue or will need to have their interest piqued. To inform and interest readers, writers often provide the historical context, using a simple sentence strategy like this:
In the following example, Jeremy Bernard provides the historical context for the controversy over the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. Notice how Bernard introduces the two authors whose texts his common ground essay analyzes.
The age of innocence in baseball seems to have ended in the 1990s when “the Steroid Era” began and players from Mark McGwire to Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez were identified as using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). . . . In 2006, the concern was so great that George Mitchell, the former Senate Majority Leader and peace negotiator, was enlisted to investigate . . . . An opposing position has been presented by respected baseball authority Eric Walker on his Web site Steroids, Other “Drugs,” and Baseball. (Bernard, pars. 1–3)
Historical context
Authors’ names
Credentials
Publication
To grab readers’ attention, notice that Bernard includes the names of some of the most famous baseball players who were caught up in the steroids scandal: sluggers Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds, award-winning pitcher Roger Clemens, and one of the best all-around players, Alex Rodriguez.
A PROBING ANALYSIS
Look for passages where the opposing arguments are presented. To present the arguments clearly and accurately, writers of common ground analyses usually rely heavily on quotation, although they may also use summary (giving the gist of the writer’s argument) and paraphrase (putting the writer’s argument into their own words), as we can see in this example where student Betsy Samson uses all three strategies:
Chua’s main argument is that children of Chinese immigrants usually are high- achieving because their parents are proud to be helicopter parents intensely involved in every aspect of their children’s lives. More importantly, as Chua’s anecdote about her daughter Lulu’s effort to learn to play a difficult piano piece demonstrates. . . . [A]s Chua explains at the end of her article: “the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is . . . letting them see what they’re capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence” (par. 35). (Samson, par. 5)
Paraphrase
Summary
Quotation
Examine the analysis of the points of disagreement and potential agreement in the common ground essays that follow, and ask yourself how well the analysis helps you understand the motivating factors underlying the arguments. For example, see if basic values are discussed, and look for words that indicate an opposing or contrasting view, a concession, or a rebuttal:
You’d think anyone interested in sports would value fairness. But fairness turns out to be rather complicated, at least for Walker. For Mitchell, it’s pretty straightforward. As I explained earlier, Mitchell claims performance enhancing substances are wrong simply because. . . Walker concedes this point . . . However, Walker disagrees . . . . (Bernard, pars. 8–9)
Basic value
Cue: opposing view, concession, or rebuttal
Or look at the explanation of the writers’ priorities, as in this example that highlights Betsy Samson’s cueing words:
While Chua’s goal is to raise children who are “successful” (par. 1), Rosin believes “happiness” is more important than success (par. 12). In fact, Rosin claims that “success will not make you happy” (par. 12). (Samson, par. 9)
For a complete list of motivating factors, turn to Analyze the Opposing Argument Essays.
Remember that although writers search for common ground, they do not always find it. Determine whether the potential agreement the writer identifies seems likely, and note whether the writer adds qualifying words to soften any claims, as in these examples:
Indeed, they appear to prepare the way for a potentially productive common-ground-building discussion when they conclude . . . (Mae, par. 9)
Qualifying words
The fact that Rosin seems to accept Chua’s justification provides a basis for potential compromise between their opposing viewpoints.
Another basis for possible compromise is . . . (Samson, pars. 10–11)
A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PRESENTATION
Determine whether the writer comes across as fair and impartial in presenting the opposing points of view. To win and hold readers’ confidence, the writer normally does the following:
One strategy writers use to maintain their impartiality is to use quotations to present criticism, rather than presenting criticism in their own words. For example, Bernard quotes the Mitchell Report directly rather than paraphrasing the report:
“The minority of players who used [[performance enhancing]]substances were wrong,” the Mitchell Report concludes. (Bernard, par. 2)
Quotation
He also quotes ethicist Dr. Norman Fost, critiquing Mitchell’s argument about unfairness:
Fost asserts in “Steroid Hysteria: Unpacking the Claims” that “even if steroids did have . . . dire effects, it wouldn’t follow that a competent adult should be prohibited from assuming those risks in exchange for the possible benefits. We allow adults to do things that are far riskier than even the most extreme claims about steroids, such as race car driving, and even playing football.” (Bernard, par. 6)
Writers also maintain an impartial stance by using neutral language to describe the views they are analyzing and the proponents of those views. Betsy Samson, for example, describes Chua simply as a “Yale law professor” and Rosin as “a contributing editor for the Atlantic” (par. 3), avoiding any terms that could be perceived as critical or dismissive. She uses neutral verbs such as outlines, believes, and claims when describing the views espoused by the writers of the articles she is analyzing.
A CLEAR, LOGICAL ORGANIZATION
Examine the strategies the writer uses to make the points of agreement and disagreement clear and easy to follow, such as providing a clear thesis and forecasting statement announcing the areas of agreement and disagreement that the essay will focus on, as in this example from Bernard’s essay:
They agree that the medical evidence is inconclusive. More importantly, they agree that there is a risk of side effects from PEDs. They agree that the medical risks to adolescents are, as Walker puts it, “substantial and potentially grave.” But they disagree on the significance of the risks to adults, and they disagree on who should decide whether the risks are worth taking. (Bernard, par. 4)
Announces agreement
Transition signaling shift
Announces disagreement
Check to see whether the key terms used in the thesis and forecasting statement (or synonyms) are used again in topic sentences or headings. For example, Bernard uses the key term health risk both in a heading and in the topic sentence used to introduce the discussion of that risk:
| HEADING | Should PEDs Be Banned from Baseball Because They Constitute a Significant Health Risk? |
| TOPIC SENTENCE | The health risks of using PEDs . . . (Bernard, par. 4) |
Key term
(He used “medical risks” earlier.) Because common ground analyses are usually organized as a comparison and contrast between two opposing points of view, writers typically use the author’s name to identify each viewpoint. In addition, they use logical transitions indicating comparison (like, similarly, as well as) and contrast (whereas, but, although) to make clear to readers the important similarities and differences between the two authors’ positions on the issue.