On 4/10/02 1:34:00 PM, Eileen Thompson wrote:
>In our class discussion today,
>we explored how Tompkins's
>first two segments of her
>essay
>"worked" rhetorically (in
>other words, how they worked
>to develop her argument). I
>want you
>to reread the conclusion,
>paying particular attention to
>the last two paragraphs, to
>discuss
>how you are understanding what
>conclusions she comes to. How
>does she wriggle her way out
>of her epistemological and
>moral quandaries?

Although Dr.Thompkins tried to write a good paper, I found this hard to read. She starts off by getting the reader to beleave that she is comming from a fantasy based on her childhood; She then goes on to state what she call`s misconceptions on the part of authors from previous resorces, when I feel in truth what she wound up doing is to do the basic fundamental stuff we are raised as children to do and that is to read as much on a subject and then come to a logical concluesion based on facts as seen from athorities and then to come to a concluesion based on what we know about the subject matter, by pieceing together the parts; much like a jigsaw puzzle. In all honesty this is what I feel that Dr. Thompkins has done with her subject.