Questions for Each Reading and Film
For each assigned reading or film watched this semester, you will complete a set of questions. Please answer each question in complete sentences. Please note that in most cases an answer of only one sentence will not be sufficient to thoroughly answer the question and gain full credit for the answer. All answers should refer directly to the text or film and use direct quotation whenever possible. Answers should not assume that the reader of the answers has the questions in front of her, so answers like "Yes, it does change," are unacceptable. Assignments will be worth 10 to 20 points each.
"A Homemade Education" By Malcolm X (Due 2/20)
1. Discuss the significance of the essay's title, "A Homemade Education." What does Malcolm X mean by the title? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
2. Explain how Malcolm X used his dictionary to improve his education.
3. Discuss his observation that "the ability to read awoke inside me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive." How does reading help improve or influence one's mental faculties?
4. Comment on his assertion that his "alma mater was books." How are books crucial to Malcolm X's education? Are there any limitations to this type of education?
5. What details help make clear his passion for learning?
2. Explain how Malcolm X used his dictionary to improve his education.
3. Discuss his observation that "the ability to read awoke inside me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive." How does reading help improve or influence one's mental faculties?
4. Comment on his assertion that his "alma mater was books." How are books crucial to Malcolm X's education? Are there any limitations to this type of education?
5. What details help make clear his passion for learning?
Avatar Review by Roger Ebert (2/27)
1. What is Roger Ebert's evaluation of Avatar?
2. What criteria does he use to come to his evaluation? (In other words, why does he feel the way he does about the film?)
3. What evidence does Ebert use to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he highlight the main evaluations of the film throughout the review or only in the beginning?
4. Does Ebert describe his subject, ie. the film, in enough detail or does he provide too much plot summary? Is he lacking details?
5. Is his review convincing? Does it make you want to see the film? Why or why not? What could he have done differently in his composition of the piece to convince you?
2. What criteria does he use to come to his evaluation? (In other words, why does he feel the way he does about the film?)
3. What evidence does Ebert use to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he highlight the main evaluations of the film throughout the review or only in the beginning?
4. Does Ebert describe his subject, ie. the film, in enough detail or does he provide too much plot summary? Is he lacking details?
5. Is his review convincing? Does it make you want to see the film? Why or why not? What could he have done differently in his composition of the piece to convince you?
Avatar Review by David Edelstein (2/27)
1. What is David Edelstein's evaluation of Avatar?
2. What criteria does he use to come to his evaluation? (In other words, why does he feel the way he does about the film?)
3. What evidence does Edelstein use to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he highlight the main evaluations of the film throughout the review or only in the beginning?
4. Does Edelstein describe his subject, ie. the film, in enough detail or does he provide too much plot summary? Is he lacking details?
5. Is his review convincing? Does it make you want to see or avoid the film? Why or why not? What could he have done differently in his composition of the piece to convince you?
2. What criteria does he use to come to his evaluation? (In other words, why does he feel the way he does about the film?)
3. What evidence does Edelstein use to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he highlight the main evaluations of the film throughout the review or only in the beginning?
4. Does Edelstein describe his subject, ie. the film, in enough detail or does he provide too much plot summary? Is he lacking details?
5. Is his review convincing? Does it make you want to see or avoid the film? Why or why not? What could he have done differently in his composition of the piece to convince you?
"What's Wrong With Cinderella?" By Peggy Orenstein (3/4)
1. Discuss what Orenstein finds problematic with the Cinderella image as portrayed to young girls.
2. What effect does Orenstein feel the worship of the princess figure will have on shaping and evolving the meaning of girlhood?
3. What position does the author have at the end of the article? Is it the same as where she started? If it changes, how does it change?
4. Are there any positive elements to the princess phenomenon? What, if anything, can young girls learn from princesses as role models?
2. What effect does Orenstein feel the worship of the princess figure will have on shaping and evolving the meaning of girlhood?
3. What position does the author have at the end of the article? Is it the same as where she started? If it changes, how does it change?
4. Are there any positive elements to the princess phenomenon? What, if anything, can young girls learn from princesses as role models?
Jonathan Gould's Review of Cortez (3/6)
1. What do you think of the introductory paragraphs of Gould's review? Do you get the sense that his review will be positive, negative or somewhere in between? Is this an effective style of introduction for this type of evaluation?
2. Is there a clear thesis? If so, what is Gould's evaluation of Cortez? Who does he feel will want to eat at this restaurant?
3. What evidence does Gould provide to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does the evidence directly support his thesis?
4. Is Gould's review effective and convincing? How does it make you feel about Cortez? Would you eat there?
2. Is there a clear thesis? If so, what is Gould's evaluation of Cortez? Who does he feel will want to eat at this restaurant?
3. What evidence does Gould provide to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does the evidence directly support his thesis?
4. Is Gould's review effective and convincing? How does it make you feel about Cortez? Would you eat there?
John Brandon's Review of the Wilson Steam 99S (3/6)
1. What is Brandon's overall evaluation of the tennis racket?
2. What do you think of the tone and style of Bradon's review? Is it interesting to read, even if you aren't a tennis player?
3. What evidence does Brandon provide to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he use criteria to evaluate the racket that others would also use when determining whether or not to purchase a product?
4. Is Brandon's review effective and convincing? Does he succeed in persuading his audience?
2. What do you think of the tone and style of Bradon's review? Is it interesting to read, even if you aren't a tennis player?
3. What evidence does Brandon provide to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he use criteria to evaluate the racket that others would also use when determining whether or not to purchase a product?
4. Is Brandon's review effective and convincing? Does he succeed in persuading his audience?
Peter Fish's Review of Kailua (3/6)
1. What is Fish's evaluation of Kailua? How does he make his evaluation clear? Is there a clear thesis statement?
2. What evidence does Fish provide to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he use criteria to evaluate a vacation destination that others would also use?
3. Does Fish believe that Kailua is a great destination for all vacationers, or is it for a specific type of vacationer? Would you want to visit based off of his review? Why or why not?
2. What evidence does Fish provide to support his evaluation? Is the evidence clear, convincing and detailed? Does he use criteria to evaluate a vacation destination that others would also use?
3. Does Fish believe that Kailua is a great destination for all vacationers, or is it for a specific type of vacationer? Would you want to visit based off of his review? Why or why not?
"Fast Food Nation" By Eric Schlosser (4/1)
1. Some readers might consider Schlosser's argument an overreaction and protest that fast food is reasonably good and a helpful time-saving measure. How does Schlosser anticipate these objections? How successful is he in building a case against the fast food industry?
2. Has the "McDonaldization" of American society standardized tastes, resulting in a loss of uniqueness and individuality? Place your answer in the context of Schlosser's arguments.
3. After assessing the problem of fast food in a broad sense, Schlosser suggests a series of steps the American people can take to combat its negative influence. Assess the practicality of these steps. Do you think his solutions will likely help the problem? Why or why not?
2. Has the "McDonaldization" of American society standardized tastes, resulting in a loss of uniqueness and individuality? Place your answer in the context of Schlosser's arguments.
3. After assessing the problem of fast food in a broad sense, Schlosser suggests a series of steps the American people can take to combat its negative influence. Assess the practicality of these steps. Do you think his solutions will likely help the problem? Why or why not?
"Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs" By Stephen Jay Gould ( In-class: 4/8)
1. What distinction does Gould make between good scientific theories and bad ones? What does he feel that science is, in essence? What does he feel it should accomplish?
2. According to Gould, why is it unlikely that a sex-related catastrophe killed the dinosaurs? Why is it unlikely that a drugs-related catastrophe killed the dinosaurs? According to Gould, why is it more likely that a natural disaster-related catastrophe killed the dinosaurs?
3. How has the asteroid theory influenced the development of the nuclear winter theory? Why is the nuclear winter theory important from both scientific and political perspectives?
4. How does Gould use comparison and contrast to highlight his argument? Is this an effective strategy to convince readers of his argument's validity?
2. According to Gould, why is it unlikely that a sex-related catastrophe killed the dinosaurs? Why is it unlikely that a drugs-related catastrophe killed the dinosaurs? According to Gould, why is it more likely that a natural disaster-related catastrophe killed the dinosaurs?
3. How has the asteroid theory influenced the development of the nuclear winter theory? Why is the nuclear winter theory important from both scientific and political perspectives?
4. How does Gould use comparison and contrast to highlight his argument? Is this an effective strategy to convince readers of his argument's validity?
An Inconvenient Truth (4/10)
1. What is the overall aim of Al Gore's film? In other words, is he trying to argue a position, persuade his audience, or simply inform. How do you know this is his aim? What is his overall thesis?
2. List some examples of things that, according the the film, contribute to global warming.
3. Is global warming a political or a moral issue and why? Explain your answer in the context of Gore's film and your own understanding of the problem of global warming.
4. According to the film, what are some consequences of global warming?
5. Does Al Gore propose any solutions to the problem? If so, what are they and do they seem likely to help solve the problem?
6. After viewing the film, have your views on global warming changed? Is it fact or fiction? Man made or natural
7. According to what you know about Al Gore, does he have an effect on your position in the debate?
8. Argument: If we make policies to help decrease global warming we will eliminate American jobs. Is this a logical argument? Why or why not?
2. List some examples of things that, according the the film, contribute to global warming.
3. Is global warming a political or a moral issue and why? Explain your answer in the context of Gore's film and your own understanding of the problem of global warming.
4. According to the film, what are some consequences of global warming?
5. Does Al Gore propose any solutions to the problem? If so, what are they and do they seem likely to help solve the problem?
6. After viewing the film, have your views on global warming changed? Is it fact or fiction? Man made or natural
7. According to what you know about Al Gore, does he have an effect on your position in the debate?
8. Argument: If we make policies to help decrease global warming we will eliminate American jobs. Is this a logical argument? Why or why not?
Food Inc. (In-class: 5/15)
1. What do you believe the thesis of the filmmakers' is? What do you believe the purpose of the film is? For instance, is it meant to be persuasive, argumentative, informative, etc.?
2. How do the filmmakers support their thesis? What sort of evidence do they present? Is the evidence believable and/or convincing? Do the filmmakers utilize any counter-arguments? If so, what are they and are they used in a way that furthers the filmmakers' argument?
3. How does the film relate to the Schlosser article, "Fast Food Nation?" Does the film seem to have similar goals/objectives? Do they present similar information? Is one more convincing than the other? In other words, take a few moments to compare and contrast the goals/objectives and approach that each work took to the food issues facing our nation.
4. What solutions to the problem, if any, are proposed by the filmmakers? Do they seem realistic and enforceable? Can you think of a better solution or set of solutions?
2. How do the filmmakers support their thesis? What sort of evidence do they present? Is the evidence believable and/or convincing? Do the filmmakers utilize any counter-arguments? If so, what are they and are they used in a way that furthers the filmmakers' argument?
3. How does the film relate to the Schlosser article, "Fast Food Nation?" Does the film seem to have similar goals/objectives? Do they present similar information? Is one more convincing than the other? In other words, take a few moments to compare and contrast the goals/objectives and approach that each work took to the food issues facing our nation.
4. What solutions to the problem, if any, are proposed by the filmmakers? Do they seem realistic and enforceable? Can you think of a better solution or set of solutions?
"Columbine: Whose Fault is It?" By Marilyn Manson (In-class: 5/15)
1. How does Manson respond to the assertion that his music was to blame for the murders at columbine?
2. What instead does he blame for not only Columbine but also for the majority of the violence in out society? Do you agree? Explain.
3. Do you feel that entertainment is in any way responsible for the violent and cynical state of the world?
2. What instead does he blame for not only Columbine but also for the majority of the violence in out society? Do you agree? Explain.
3. Do you feel that entertainment is in any way responsible for the violent and cynical state of the world?
"The 2000 Election and the 'War on Terrorism'" By Howard Zinn (5/29)
1. Although this selection is written as history, are the author's political leanings apparent in his writing? If so, is this ethical?
2. Summarize Zinn's history of the 2000 election and the war on terror. Discuss your own personal reactions to the detailed events.
3. What is Zinn's position on the motivation for the 9/11 attacks? Does he agree that it was an attack on our democratic freedom?
2. Summarize Zinn's history of the 2000 election and the war on terror. Discuss your own personal reactions to the detailed events.
3. What is Zinn's position on the motivation for the 9/11 attacks? Does he agree that it was an attack on our democratic freedom?
Capitalism: A Love Story (6/3)
1. What images comprise the title sequence (AKA the opening credits) of the film? What commentary is Moore immediately making about whom he thinks to be our economy’s villains?
2. Why does Moore compare the fall of the Roman Empire to contemporary American society? What does he see as comparable cultural and economic factors?
3. What do you believe is Michael Moore's thesis? What do you believe the purpose of the film is? For instance, is it meant to be persuasive, argumentative, informative, etc.?
4. How does Michael Moore support his thesis? What sort of evidence does he present? Is the evidence believable and/or convincing? Does he utilize any counter-arguments? If so, what are they and are they used in a way that furthers the filmmaker's argument?
5. What solutions to the problem, if any, are proposed by the filmmakers? Do the solutions seem realistic and enforceable? Can you think of a better solution or set of solutions?
2. Why does Moore compare the fall of the Roman Empire to contemporary American society? What does he see as comparable cultural and economic factors?
3. What do you believe is Michael Moore's thesis? What do you believe the purpose of the film is? For instance, is it meant to be persuasive, argumentative, informative, etc.?
4. How does Michael Moore support his thesis? What sort of evidence does he present? Is the evidence believable and/or convincing? Does he utilize any counter-arguments? If so, what are they and are they used in a way that furthers the filmmaker's argument?
5. What solutions to the problem, if any, are proposed by the filmmakers? Do the solutions seem realistic and enforceable? Can you think of a better solution or set of solutions?