In my argument synthesis review, I plan on revising my organization. Aaron suggested that I move some paragraphs around, and I believe that this sound advice. Aaron also said that I have too much support in my paper. In order to adress this issue, I will reduce the number of song lyrics I have in the paper. It is clear that Conor Oberst's music is politically involved by focusing on just two or three songs instead of six. This will make my paper flow better because readers will not be distracted by the huge number of songs included in it. The third thing Aaron suggested I do is remove the discussion of Oberst's New York apartment. Due to the fact that this is my counterargument, I cannot remove this section. However, I will work to make it clearer so that the fact that it is counterargument is more obvious.

When I revise my review paper, I plan to focus more on Aaron's strengths in his paper. He wrote a very good paper, and I want to make sure he knows that. I will add a conclusion that briefly states what he needs to change and praises his strengths in the paper. I plan to mention his use of photographs, as I feel that really enhanced his paper. I will also proofread my paper and edit basic errors as I did not have a chance to do that yet.

Thesis:
Is there a clear thesis?
The thesis is as follows: "Bishop's book connects to the question of why Bridgewater is still dry because Bishop talks about how people during the sort are expressing their politics, not so much through voting, but through making lifestyle choices that reflect their values and beliefs." I believe it is also important to discuss how Bridgewater is an example of the sort. Include what you say about how Bridgewater is an elitist town and people want to remain there because of this in your thesis.
Does it take a position on how the writer’s event, issue or culture challenges or supports (some part of) Bishop’s theory or another theory drawn from psychology, sociology, etc.?
Yes, the thesis addresses Bishop.

Generic Conventions:
Does the piece provide a background section including a summary of Bishop’s or another theory and a description of the community’s politics supported by at least one scholarly source?
The summary section is strong. You provide the example of the library and Charles Tiebout's ideas.
Does the essay provide a body section that is organized, well-supported and presents and responds to counterarguments?
I am not sure if you use counterargument in your paper.

Support:
Is it varied (including definitions, examples, etc.)?
Examples and photographs are used. The photographs really enhance your support.
Is each piece of evidence that is included—any quotation, for instance--followed up by analysis explaining how it serves as evidence for a point the writer is making?
Yes.
Are counterarguments and counterevidence acknowledged?
See above.
Does the writer use more than one piece of evidence in each body paragraph?
You keep each body paragraph very focused by only dealing with one piece of evidence.

Unity:
Does the title suggest the topic and argument of the argument synthesis paper?
Yes.
Does the lead provide an engaging example, ask a provocative question, etc. that leads the reader toward understanding what the writer’s position is?
The topic of a dry town is definitely interesting.
Do the topic sentences make references to the thesis’s argument?
The topic sentences are very strong.
Does the writer come back to the thesis’s argument near body paragraph endings?
Yes.
Do “pros” of the writer’s argument for the source’s persuasiveness connect with the “cons”? Consider how the pros and cons challenge and/or support (some part of) Bishop’s or another theory; this should be obvious.
You connect Bishop's ideas to Bridgewater.

Coherence:
Do the topic sentences introduce the full content of the paragraphs they introduce?
For the most part, yes.
Are quotes dropped in, or (1) does the writer let you know what quotes are examples of and how they support his/her argument in this paragraph or (2) does the writer use signal phrases (such as “she notes,” “he asserts,” etc.)?
Quotes are introduced nicely.
Are transitions provided within and between paragraphs (“Not only is this church…but it is also…”; “first,” “second” and “third”; etc.)
Transitions are provided.

Creativity:
Does the voice of the writer seem specific to her or him somehow—or as if it could have been written by anyone?
You have a strong narrative voice.
Is there a paragraph or example that convinces you to agree—or disagree—with the writer? Why do you think that’s so?
The paragraph that starts with, "The idea of maintaining..." is really strong. It was this paragraph that convinced me that Bridegwater does in fact support the sort. People who live in an elitist down are going to want their town to remain elitist.

Mechanics/style issues:
Do you see any clarity errors—including sentences that should be combined, uses of mixed grammar, etc.—or other grammatical or punctuation errors, such as sentence fragments, misuses of commas, etc.?
There are definitely some general grammar errors. I edited these on the hard copy of your paper.

MLA:
Are there citations in each sentence where there is a quote or borrowed idea?
No. You need to be sure to cite when paraphrasing as well as quoting.
Are the in-text citations correct (providing author’s last name and page number)?
I'm under the assumption you could not find the author of a number of your sources.
Are there a correctly formatted Works Cited page and Works Cited page entry here?
The Works Cited page is correctly formatted.

Thesis: Through the use of examples and testimony, Bill Bishop persuades readers that the distrust of government and other institutions that started in the 1960s played a part in bringing about of a politically polarized nation. Due to the fact that Bishop's arguments are clear, I agree with his views.
Summary: In the 1950s, politics were not based on moral terms. At the start of the 1960s, people began losing their trust in the government, medicine, religion, large corporations, and education. When one looks at the accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson, this lack of trust makes little sense. It was the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement that caused people to lose their trust in the government and other institutions. This lack of trust forced the government to become less active over the years. All of this contributed to a "decline in partisan political behavior" (Bishop, 103). This is why the Big Sort exists today.
Evaluation: One of the points Bishop makes in this chapter is that, in the 1960s, politics were not moralized. In order to make this argument, Bishop must define what exactly moralized means. He does this by providing readers with a number of examples: "...there was no relationship between church attendance and party. Regular churchgoers voted both Democratic and Republican" (Bishop, 82). Through this example, readers understand that whether someone goes to church or not is a moral decision. Since church and party were not linked, politics were not controlled by morals.
A key piece to Bishop"s argument is the data Ronald Inglehart gathered. Inglehart fund that "hungry people cared about survival... But those who grew up in abundance would be more concerned with self-expression. Those who lived in times of depression or joblessness esteemed economic growth. Those who knew plenty were more concerned about the environment and individual choice" (Bishop, 84). Bishop then uses the ideas of others to prove Inglehart's theory. He discusses Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow said that people needed to satisfy physiological and safety needs before they had a strong desire for love and esteem. This fits in with Inglehart's argument. Poor people could not discuss moral issues because they were still focused on hunger and financial security. Wealthier people already had those needs met and were, therefore, free to discuss moral issues.
Assesment: I agree with Bill Bishop's views. He makes a strong agrument when he discusses why politics are not based on moral terms by providing readers with examples. I find it easy to believe him when he says that people do not trust the government and other institutions because I do not trust these things. President Bush and his administration connected September 11, 2001 to the War in Iraq when these two events actually had nothing to do with each other. It is hard to trust the government when a war is started based on lies. I also believe that the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement led to distrust. The Vietnam War was the first war that the United States didn't even come close to winning. It made no sense that we were even over there. Also, the Civil Rights Movement was extremely strong in the 1960s.
In conclusion, Bill Bishop succeeds in persuading readers that distrust caused a politically polarized nation. This is seen through the use of examples, such as when Bishop proves that politics were not based on morals because an equal number of Democrats and Republicans went to church. He uses the testimony of Abraham Maslow to show that people cares were related to their social class. These changes led to movements such as the protests against the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. With so much questioning going on, people started to distrust the government. This led to the decline of polarization.

For my critique assignment, I have chosen to read the fourth chapter of The Big Sort. I believe the thesis of this chapter is best stated on the last page: "The new society was more about personal taste and worldview than public policy. It was as much or more concerned with self-expression and belief as with social class and economics" (Bishop, 104). In this chapter, Bishop is trying to convince readers that what he's saying is true. His purpose is to persuade.
Clear definition of terms:
One of the points Bishop makes in this chapter is that, in the 1960s, politics were not moralized. In order to make this argument, Bishop must define what exactly moralized means. He does this by providing readers with a number of examples: "...there was no relationship between church attendance and party. Regular churchgoers voted both Democratic and Republican" (Bishop, 82). Through this example, readers understand that whether someone goes to church or not is a moral decision. Since church and party were not linked, politics were not controlled by morals.
Fair use and interpretation of information:
A key piece to Bishop's argument is the data Ronald Inglehart gathered. Inglehart found that "hungry people cared about survival... But those who grew up in abundance would be more concerned with self-expression. Those who lived in times of depression or joblessness esteemed economic growth. Those who knew plenty were more concerned about the environment and individual choice" (Bishop, 84). Bishop then uses the ideas of others to prove Inglehart's theory. He discusses Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow said that people needed to satisfy physiological and safety needs before they had a strong desire for love and esteem. This fits in with Inglehart's argument. Poor people could not discuss moral issues because they were still focused on hunger and financial security. Wealthier people already had those needs met and were, therefore, free to discuss moral issues.
Logical reasoning:
Bill Bishop then brings his discussion back to politics. He says that all of this moral thinking resulted in a decrease in trust. People stopped trusting the government just as much as they stopped trusting churches, education, medicine, large corporations, and journalism. Bishop sites the findings of scholars, saying that American trust is directly correlated with American experience: "American's trust was related to national political scandals. (Trust levels dipped sharply after Watergate in the mid-1970s, for example.) Also, if the economy hit a bad patch or if the government seemed overly prone to bungle, trust declined" (Bishop, 95). This is a very logical argument. Of course people are going to stop trusting politicians when they find out they've been lied to.

This chapter of What It Takes by Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen discusses critique. When writing a critique, one must summarize and evaluate the passage in question. Behrens and Rosen advise writers to ask themselves two questions when writing a critique. First, "To what extent does the author succeed in his or her purpose?" (Behrens, 37). Second, "To what extent do you agree with the author?" (Behrens, 37). These two questions divide the critiquing process into five steps: Introduce, summarize, assess the presentation, respond to the presentation, and conclude. To illustrate the critiquing process, Behrens and Rosen include an article by Joan Ryan titled "We Are Not Created Equal in Every Way." They also include a critique of this piece. I believe that Eric Ralston does a good job introducing the topic. He summarizes Ryan's article and spends an adequate amount of time evaluating the article. I like that Ralston mentions specific language in Ryan's essay, such as when he points out the difference between discriminating and discriminatory. Though it is apparent that Ralston agrees with Ryan's points from his assessment of the article, I still believe that Ralston should have spend more time responding to the presentation. His conclusion is strong.