Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
4.1.3 Stage 3: understanding what you are reading • Guessing words that you do not know. Do not expect to know all the words read. Even as a more extensive vocabulary is acquired, there will be words that are not known. You may even have singled the following out already: Lexcalibur, democratic ‘deficit’, ‘competencies of the Union’, ‘specific gravity’ and ‘apocryphal statement’. • Identifying main ideas. Here, the main idea is that a package of three proposals (a limited ballot by citizens concerning legislation; internet access to European decision making; establishment of a constitutional council), taken from research, initiated by the European Parliament, can make a real difference to increase the power of the European citizen without creating a political drama. • Identifying subsidiary ideas. Here, that there could be potential clashes between the constitutional council and the function of the European Court of Justice. • Identifying overall text organisation. Every writer has a different way of organising, classifying and structuring their work. This needs to be ascertained by any reader who wishes to break successfully into the text. Here the author has clearly indicated structure through the headings and has discussed points in the order indicated. The writer is: discussing a specific problem; and proposing a solution to that problem. 6.4.1.4 Stage 4: evaluating what you are reading • Ascertaining the purpose of the writer. The writer wants to inform about something and indicate the correctness of a particular point of view. • Evaluating the argument(s) of the writer. The argument here is relatively easy to extract because the article is written in a punchy, journalistic style while keeping to headings. What is clear, however, is that the detail given to setting out the three proposals is not given to indicating evidence to support propositions—perhaps because the writer feels that many of his propositions are self-evident. Having ascertained the arguments, then it is up to the reader to decide what is thought. A student’s view of the argument of the writer is initially limited by their lack of knowledge of the issues spoken of. As research is continued in an area for an essay, more is learnt, more about competing views, and more about the area generally. Then, the student’s view of the argument may change. Even if an argument is preferred, it can still be a weak or strong argument either theoretically or practically. It can be weak because no evidence to show support for important propositions or ultimate conclusion has been put forward.
DOI link for 4.1.3 Stage 3: understanding what you are reading • Guessing words that you do not know. Do not expect to know all the words read. Even as a more extensive vocabulary is acquired, there will be words that are not known. You may even have singled the following out already: Lexcalibur, democratic ‘deficit’, ‘competencies of the Union’, ‘specific gravity’ and ‘apocryphal statement’. • Identifying main ideas. Here, the main idea is that a package of three proposals (a limited ballot by citizens concerning legislation; internet access to European decision making; establishment of a constitutional council), taken from research, initiated by the European Parliament, can make a real difference to increase the power of the European citizen without creating a political drama. • Identifying subsidiary ideas. Here, that there could be potential clashes between the constitutional council and the function of the European Court of Justice. • Identifying overall text organisation. Every writer has a different way of organising, classifying and structuring their work. This needs to be ascertained by any reader who wishes to break successfully into the text. Here the author has clearly indicated structure through the headings and has discussed points in the order indicated. The writer is: discussing a specific problem; and proposing a solution to that problem. 6.4.1.4 Stage 4: evaluating what you are reading • Ascertaining the purpose of the writer. The writer wants to inform about something and indicate the correctness of a particular point of view. • Evaluating the argument(s) of the writer. The argument here is relatively easy to extract because the article is written in a punchy, journalistic style while keeping to headings. What is clear, however, is that the detail given to setting out the three proposals is not given to indicating evidence to support propositions—perhaps because the writer feels that many of his propositions are self-evident. Having ascertained the arguments, then it is up to the reader to decide what is thought. A student’s view of the argument of the writer is initially limited by their lack of knowledge of the issues spoken of. As research is continued in an area for an essay, more is learnt, more about competing views, and more about the area generally. Then, the student’s view of the argument may change. Even if an argument is preferred, it can still be a weak or strong argument either theoretically or practically. It can be weak because no evidence to show support for important propositions or ultimate conclusion has been put forward.
4.1.3 Stage 3: understanding what you are reading • Guessing words that you do not know. Do not expect to know all the words read. Even as a more extensive vocabulary is acquired, there will be words that are not known. You may even have singled the following out already: Lexcalibur, democratic ‘deficit’, ‘competencies of the Union’, ‘specific gravity’ and ‘apocryphal statement’. • Identifying main ideas. Here, the main idea is that a package of three proposals (a limited ballot by citizens concerning legislation; internet access to European decision making; establishment of a constitutional council), taken from research, initiated by the European Parliament, can make a real difference to increase the power of the European citizen without creating a political drama. • Identifying subsidiary ideas. Here, that there could be potential clashes between the constitutional council and the function of the European Court of Justice. • Identifying overall text organisation. Every writer has a different way of organising, classifying and structuring their work. This needs to be ascertained by any reader who wishes to break successfully into the text. Here the author has clearly indicated structure through the headings and has discussed points in the order indicated. The writer is: discussing a specific problem; and proposing a solution to that problem. 6.4.1.4 Stage 4: evaluating what you are reading • Ascertaining the purpose of the writer. The writer wants to inform about something and indicate the correctness of a particular point of view. • Evaluating the argument(s) of the writer. The argument here is relatively easy to extract because the article is written in a punchy, journalistic style while keeping to headings. What is clear, however, is that the detail given to setting out the three proposals is not given to indicating evidence to support propositions—perhaps because the writer feels that many of his propositions are self-evident. Having ascertained the arguments, then it is up to the reader to decide what is thought. A student’s view of the argument of the writer is initially limited by their lack of knowledge of the issues spoken of. As research is continued in an area for an essay, more is learnt, more about competing views, and more about the area generally. Then, the student’s view of the argument may change. Even if an argument is preferred, it can still be a weak or strong argument either theoretically or practically. It can be weak because no evidence to show support for important propositions or ultimate conclusion has been put forward.
ABSTRACT
The argument here is relatively easy to extract because the article is written in a punchy, journalistic style while keeping to headings. What is clear, however, is that the detail given to setting out the three proposals is not given to indicating evidence to support propositions-perhaps because the writer feels that many of his propositions are self-evident. Having ascertained the arguments, then it is up to the reader to decide what is thought. A student’s view of the argument of the writer is initially limited by their lack of knowledge of the issues spoken of. As research is continued in an area for an essay, more is learnt, more about competing views, and more about the area generally. Then, the student’s view of the argument may change. Even if an argument is preferred, it can still be a weak or strong argument either theoretically or practically. It can be weak because no evidence to show support for important propositions or ultimate conclusion has been put forward.
