Question

1.what is "planting the naysayer"?

2.what ate three benefits of doing so? Explain

Answer 1

1)

According to They Say I Say by Graff and Birkenstein, telling readers what others may say in opposition to your point will certainly improve your credibility. If you provide your opponents a voice, then you have extra probabilities to undermine their argument. I never even mentioned an opposing aspect in my first paper. After analyzing chapter six in They Say I Say we have been given an challenge to write a "naysayer paragraph" for paper two. I wrote

I nonetheless maintain Holt’s argument of poor capability. It is indispensable to keep feelings and professionalism separated because otherwise one may also now not be in a position to listen on the venture at hand. Doctors have to have passion for human beings and have to care for their patients to choose to shop lives, as skeptics claim, but the distinction is, they have to recognize when to put the assignment above their feelings. If the medical doctor lets thoughts take hold, they will not be able to pass on to other patients who need their help as well. Selzer portrays this when Franciscus is emotionally drained through Imelda’s death. He is unable to proceed his career as it once used to be before: “he [Franciscus] operated a desirable deal less, then gave it up entirely” . Here, Selzer emphasizes the fact that docs can now not be caught up on feelings and connections to patients, due to the fact then that will leave others unable to get hold of full interest and treatment.

This paragraph made my paper a good deal better . It confirmed that I did now not suppose my claims were beyond dispute and that I respected my readers as crucial thinkers who could formulate their very own opinion on the topic. After doing this exercising and such as it in my paper, I made positive to insert a naysayer in my paper three:

Skeptics might also challenge the notion that Sontag is blinded via her disease. As a person suffering from cancer, shouldn’t she recognize what is excellent for others going via the identical ordeal According to critic James Mathers, there is a considerable difference between being unwell and genuinely enduring a disease. He argues that Sontag’s essay does not differentiate between the two, she “does no longer distinguish experiencing illness from being ill”. Mathers’ factor is that these are two totally one-of-a-kind matters. There is a difference between having a ailment and truly living each day feeling the burden of an illness. I agree with Mathers’ factor that Sontag does not differentiate between the two, and in addition to his argument, I trust that the reason she does no longer do so, is because she erases her own experiences of cancer. Sontag is ill, but she refuses to trip the sickness because this would suggest coming to phrases with death. Illness metaphors help sufferers discover the thought of death, and if she refuses to see death as an option, Sontag refuses to accept the fact that loss of life is an option, and consequently is unable to see any advantage to metaphorical thinking.

I additionally covered a naysayer in paper four. As you can tell, it expanded a lot from the last paper. This used to be my strongest one and used to be a whole paragraph itself rather than a couple of sentences. In this naysayer, I agreed with the argument and noted its validity, however used it as an probability to revise my role (this phase is highlighted in blue). According to They Say I Say, it is exceptional to do this, to "make concessions whilst nonetheless standing your ground".

2

Upon reading this, skeptics may additionally right now disagree. They may also argue that there is really nothing incorrect with Slater’s use of sickness metaphor. She is after all, telling her story, and epilepsy is the only way she sees fit to do so. In addition, she does no longer make any claims about the disorder’s truths. Instead, she discourages readers from seeing any literal truths in her story. The title of her book, Lying, is an immediate warning and the first chapter reinforces the concept with only two words: “I exaggerate” . Slater warns us no longer to take the whole thing she says for literal truth he has the freedom to specific herself the way she wants. Although this argument is valid, and I agree that Slater has the freedom to express herself anyway she deems appropriate, I believe that the approach she takes is unethical. Since she does no longer understand what it is like to go through from the illness, she stereotypes epileptics. The statements she makes only create greater confusion about the disorder and places larger worry on sufferers.

PLEASE DO LIKE??