I used the article found at http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-congress-has-no-1177339.html
Later on in the article this paragraph came up: "In trying to win over the voting public and build pressure on Congress, Obama has made his pitch in Virginia, the home state of House Republican Leader Eric Cantor, and Ohio, home of House Speaker John Boehner. He will travel on Wednesday to North Carolina."
The argument is:
1.Obama went to Virginia, home to House Republican Leader Eric Cantor
2. Obama went to Ohio, home of House Speaker John Boehner
3. He will travel again to North Carolina
---------
C. Obama is trying to win over the voting public
Your conclusion isn't stated in the passage. That's fine, but put it in brackets to indicate that it's tacit. I wonder whether it's really the intended conclusion, however (have you given us enough of the passage to tell?). It seems a little overdetermined, since that is what politicians always do -- the same conclusion would follow from a report that he brushed his teeth, almost.
ReplyDeleteThis passage seems like an expository passage to me in that it "is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one of more sentences that develop the topic sentence.
ReplyDeleteI feel this way because your conclusion seems like it should be placed in the category of common knowledge - of course the politician is trying to win votes. This is stating that Obama wants to keep his job and isnt stating anything that needs to be backed up - it should be taken as a fact and not a conclusion. I would find a conclusion here if it went against the grain and stated that Obama was trying to lose votes, because that goes against common sense, why would a guy sabotage himself?
To make the conclusion more precise, you could say something like "Obama is trying to win independent votes in states with a strong Republican voice." That might be a little too wordy, but it seems to be what the actual intention of the visits is.
ReplyDelete