a. Introduction
Define the title, introduce the knowledge question (optional), and state thesis.
•
Hook: Establish the broader context and significance of the title.
•
Knowledge Question (KQ): reformulated question of the PT
◦
Purpose of KQ: By exploring and answering the KQ in your essay, you should naturally be able to answer the PT as well.
•
Thesis: Outline the approach you will take, including the two AOKs and justification.
PT: “Without application in the world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge.
Quality of Writing | Example |
Initial Writing | “Application can be defined as the use of knowledge in ways that affect the world and people. With this definition, this essay will explore how application plays a role in both the arts and the natural sciences in determining the value of knowledge.” |
Improved Writing | “Within the arts, I define application as making relevant commentary about the state or future state of the world, while in the natural sciences I see application as making relevant and impactful changes to the natural world. These divergent forms of applications are essential in determining the value of knowledge, as they shape its relevance and utility.” |
b. Argument
Analyze the claim for AOK1 using one unique RLS.
•
Topic Sentence: Begin by clearly stating the main argument of the paragraph. Ensure it is specific to the AoK you are addressing.
•
Explain Key Concepts: Provide a brief explanation of any key concepts or terms that are central to your argument. This step helps clarify your point and ensure that the reader understands the context of the argument.
•
Introduce RLS: Introduce the RLS that will support your argument. This should be concise and directly connected to the point you are making. Include appropriate citations.
Quality of Writing | Example |
Initial Writing | “John Hopkins University, which has long been recognized as a leading institution in the field of higher education and research, has consistently maintained its position as the top recipient of research funding for 35 consecutive years. This reflects the university's commitment to advancing knowledge and fostering innovation across a wide range of disciplines. While it is well-known that a significant portion of their annual $2.2 billion in research funding is allocated to medical research, there are also many instances where John Hopkins supports research in fields that may be considered more niche by the general public. For instance, a substantial portion of the funding is directed toward specialized research in astrophysics, including an area of study focused on understanding the interactions between black holes and black stars.” |
Improved Writing | “John Hopkins University, has led the world in research funding for 35 years in a row, but although large percentages of their $2.2 billion fund is given to medical research, they routinely fund more obscure research, like a subset of astrophysics concerned with finding how black holes can block black stars.” |
•
Analyze RLS: Explain how the RLS supports the point you are making. This is where you connect the RLS to the KQ and the broader context of your argument.
Quality of Writing | Example |
Initial Writing | “The fact that John Hopkins University supports research in fields that may be considered more niche highlight how abstract inquiries that currently seem to not directly make any relevant or impactful change to the natural world are still valuable. For instance, understanding black holes might lead to breakthroughs in physics that we can not foresee right now. New theories could emerge in the future that challenge our understanding of the universe, possibly leading to ideas that benefit us in ways we can not imagine yet. By funding research into such abstract areas, institutions like John Hopkins are investing in the future of scientific discovery, even when the outcomes may not be obvious at first.” |
Improved Writing | “This research, although interesting, currently seems to not directly make any relevant or impactful change to the natural world, yet the knowledge we gain from this space exploration is deemed valuable, or at least worth a significant amount of monetary backing. If science takes widespread impact to mean value, then it becomes difficult to determine whether a scientific area with larger potential impact should receive more funding than an area of science with more immediate but less widespread impact. Whether or not we should value research into nuclear energy and alternate sources of power over research to maintain already catastrophic levels of climate change is debatable. The former seems to promise a solution for our current energy crisis, and has the potential to affect the world, while the latter seems a small scale pragmatic concession that doesn’t have the appeal of a grand complete solution.” |
•
Concluding Sentence: Tie your analysis back to the PT, ensuring that the argument you have made is clearly connected to the broader discussion of the nature of knowledge.
•
Repeat above steps for the AOK2 argument paragraph.
c. Counterargument
Analyze counterclaim for AOK2 using one unique RLS.
•
Topic Sentence: Present the counterclaim that introduces a different perspective of challenge to the argument you made for AOK1.
•
Explain Counterargument: Provide a brief explanation of the counterargument. This could involve clarifying why the argument may not always be sufficient, highlighting limitations, or pointing to situations where other factors are at play.
•
Introduce RLS: Introduce the RLS that will support your counterargument.
Quality of Writing | Example |
Initial Writing | “Galileo’s discovery of the heliocentric model of the universe had profound implications that went beyond just a shift in scientific theory. His observation and subsequent formulation of the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than the other way around, caused a dramatic change in how humanity viewed its place in the cosmos. Before Galileo, the geocentric model, which placed Earth at the center of the universe, was widely accepted for centuries, supported by religious and philosophical thought. However, Galileo’s work, particularly with his improved telescope, challenged these long-standing beliefs.” |
Improved Writing | “Although an old example, Galileo’s discovery of the heliocentric model of the universe caused a paradigm shift.” |
•
Analyze RLS: Explain how the RLS supports the counterargument. This is where you analyze the counterclaim by critically assessing its validity against the original claim.
Quality of Writing | Example |
Initial Writing | “They argue that these paradigm shifts could come from a number of research areas and to limit the funding of research to areas we deem currently to be the most pressing would stifle the possible future discoveries which could come from any area of science and lead to similar paradigm shifts. Hence, it serves as a reminder that knowledge, even if it does not immediately apply to practical problems, can eventually lead to breakthroughs that reshape our understanding of the world.” |
Improved Writing | “They argue that these paradigm shifts could come from a number of research areas and to limit the funding of research to areas we deem currently to be the most pressing would stifle the possible future discoveries which could come from any area of science and lead to similar paradigm shifts. Although valid, this optimistic world-view doesn’t take into account the need for pragmatic deliberation in science, as funding is not unlimited.” |
•
Concluding Sentence: Tie your analysis back to the PT, hinting at the complexity of the prompt. Utilize the opportunity to show that there are multiple perspectives to consider and that the answer to the PT is not straightforward.
•
Repeat above steps for the AOK2 counterargument paragraph.
d. Conclusion
Summarize insights and reflect on broader implications.
•
Restate the Thesis: Reflect on how the arguments presented in the essay have addressed the PT and reaffirm your stance.
•
Summarize Key Points: Recap the main points of your argument and counterargument, emphasizing how both AoKs have contributed to answering the PT.
•
Include Broader Implications: Reflect on the broader significance of your exploration. What does this discussion suggest about the core theme (knowledge and the knower) in the AOKs you explored?
•
End with a Thought-Provoking Statement: Pose further questions or future directions as your final thought. This shows deeper thinking about the complexity of knowledge.
*Note: the order of body paragraphs can be altered and/or broken down even depending on the logical flow of the writing.