Reading Papers Forum: Brandon Freeman’s Paper
There are three primary ways that writers get better at writing: 1) they write often, 2) they get honest reactions from readers of their writing, and 3) they read a lot, especially of the kinds of writing they want to do well. This activity is where you aim to do focused practical reading of an example of a research paper by Brandon Freeman entitled “Problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Definition of the Family.” This paper can be found as a PDF in this module.
Always aim to use paragraphs (Note: paragraph = 5-8 sentences), complete sentences, and well-developed thoughts.
1) Brandon freeman believes there may be a problem with the growing use of assisted reproductive technologies. Where does he see the problem?
2) Even an introduction has a structure, that is, a beginning, a middle and an end. How does the Freeman structure the introduction? Where does the beginning end and the middle begin? The middle end and ending begin? What does the beginning do, the middle do, and the end do? Does it work? How do you know? Deep assessment is what we’re after here.
3) When Freeman provides us in paragraph 2 with some background information about assisted reproductive technology (2), his attitude seems to be very positive. How are we supposed to understand the “complication” he introduces at the end of that second paragraph (2-3)?
4) Why does Freeman think that the idea of “genetic heritage” matters? How does this idea of “genetic heritage” impact his central argument?
5) Good academic writing leans heavily on what Graff & Birkenstein describe as the “they say, I say” structure. So look at paragraph six (5). Does this paragraph use this structure? How so? Specifics are what will be helpful here.
6) What are the main points of the confirmation of the paper? In other words, what exactly is Freeman’s support for his position? What specific kinds of and quality of evidence does he use to convince you? Refer to the specific ideas (and the page numbers of where you find them).
Now: is the evidence convincing? How so? Or why not?