1. steele confirmation?

2. how?

3. virus transmission

4. signature | OPA

TIME (Passage - 3:19)

BLIND REVIEW

1. Steele's immune mechanism

Structure: context/MP

Transition: more details about the mechanism steele claims to help support L's theory

2. R-DNA mutation

Structure: OPA Premise

Transition: how does this mutation figure into L's hypo?

3. virus transmission hypo

Structure: OPA support

Transition: plausible? APOV

4. patterns evidence | opposition

Structure: OPA conclusion/opposition

Very difficult for me to see a cookie cutter structure here

TIME: (Passages - 3:51)

BLIND REVIEW

1. shift - gender relations

Structure: change/shift in history | context

Transition: examples or support as to how this was produced in historical study/impact

2. impact today

Structure: impact

Transition: good/bad?

3. obscurity of gender

Structure: APOV/MP

B

1. A's laws

Stucture: context

Transition: impact

2. successful

Structure: more contextual details

Transition: relevance today?

3. momentum in art

Structure: more details

1. question - OPA cost benefit

2. morality factors

3. impractical - detection ratio

4. reconsider both

TIME: (Passage - 3:19)

BLIND REVIEW

1. question | OPA - penalty over profit

Structure: rhetorical question | OPA explanation

Transition A POV disagree

2. earnings over morality

Structure: OPA contd.

Transition: discrepancy/issue with OPA

3. consequence - detection ratio

Structure: discrepancy/issue

Transition: APOV/solution

4. alternate needed

Structure: APOV

1. FTP importance: Negro Units

2. diversity from debate

3. MP - impact

TIME: (Passage - 3:47)

BLIND REVIEW

1. FTP Negro Units

Structure: context/intro to key episode in history

Transition: more details into why important/impact at the time

2. diversity of production

Structure: details on what characterized the episode from its foundation to characteristics

Transition: APOV on why important in context of FTP broadly

3. impact

Structure: impact

TIME: 11 mins 17 secs (Passage - 3:53)

1. N.E. theory

Structure: intro/context to approach | theory defined

Transition: APOV. good?

2. A not B (not sufficient)

Structure: MP

TIME: 8 mins 05 secs (Passage - 3:39)

1. MP

Structure: context/MP

Transition: details regarding development

2. religious to political transition

Structure: premise/support

Transition: examples of political messages

3. foundation solidified

Structure: support/premise

TIME: 7 mins 43 secs

1. legal issue/question

Structure: question/issue introduced

Transition: what makes the opposition think patents are hindering basic research? reasoning

2. hindrance/threat

Structure: issue explained further/OPA

Transition: is fear unfounded? APOV

3. unfounded fear

Structure: MP

TIME: 7 mins 55 secs (Passage: 3:48)

1. quote

Structure: intro

Transition: who's saying this and why?

2. source

Structure: context/background info

Transition: why criticism of supposed legend? is criticism appropriate?

3. controversy

Structure: context/background info

Transition: did S. achieve later praise likewise?

4. S.'s representative styles, #1

Structure: APOV

Transition: #2 style

5. no tone

Structure: premise

Transition: #3?

6. 12-tone

Structure: PREMISE

Transition: MP

7. why deserving praise

Structure: MP

#12 I think the support from D comes from the third paragraph where the author says "two beliefs underlie this shift..."

I loved every moment of reading this. GOOD LUCK FAM!

me too please

1. P's hypo & resistance

Structure: context

Transition: why did they resist? OPA?

2. OPA | discrepancy

Structure: OPA| discrepancy

Transition: how did P. go about challenging? what evidence?

3. P's challenge | rebuttal

Structure: new view/OPA rebuttal

Transition: P's response

4. nuclear reaction expl.

Structure: reason for long-held resistance

1. deeper representation of self

Structure: Context/MP

Transition: "theme throughout career" flesh out how career works signify this theme, delve into previous emblematic works

2. eg. S.M.

Structure: support/premise

Transition: other works as examples

3. eg. Manhattan

Structure: Premise/support

Transition: other example

4. less artististic > more ...

Structure: support/premise

1. N.Z. decline

Structure: phen/shift - source/consequences of change

Transition: impact/potential solution

2. potential solution - model strategies

Structure: potential solution/APOV

Transition: feasible? method? what exactly are their strategies?

3. division

Structure: discrepancy/crux of issue

Transition: how does potential solution resolve?

4. CGR

Structure: method/MP

#help #help Can the fact that the second sentence is an illustration of the principle lead one to conclude that it lends some support to the principle or vice versa like AC A suggests?

1. M.G. hypo | flawed

Structure: intro/MP

Transition: details on flaws

2. consensus agenda

Structure: support/premise

Transition: Flaw #2

3. views representative?

Structure: support/premise

1. stealing thunder strategy

Structure: intro to idea/practice

Transition: importance?

2. effective

Structure: MP - premise

Transition: but...

3. "spin" - pro/drawback

premise

1. why not perfume?

Structure: rhet. question/phen

Transition: explanation?

2. parallels - art

Structure: context/deepens paradox

Transition: explanation?

3. contd. - perfumers

Structure: contd. context

Transition: explanation

4. profit interests - answer

Structure: MP/possible explanation

TOTAL TIME: 8 mins 04 secs (Passage - 3:45)

1. Complex balance

2. analogy - language

3. continuous - relaxing

BLIND REVIEW

1. complex-organized balance

Structure: MP

Transition: support...examples in music

2. analogy - language

Structure: support for idea of complexity being essential

Transition: more support

3. continuous = relax!

Structure: support for coherence being essential

Cookie Cutter - to persuade, hypothesis - support?

1. natural selection S.C.

2. discrepancy

3. eg. random neutral mutations

4. eg. dinosaurs

Passage - 3:50 = 7 mins 54 secs

BLIND REVIEW

1. OPA - natural selection

Structure: OPA / context

Transition: A POV wrong

2. discrepancy

Structure: MP

Transition: Support? Examples in nature?

3. neutral adaptations

Structure: support - part 1 of MP

Transition: implications

4. nonconforming eg. - dinosaurs

Structure: support - part 2 of MP

1. "grand theories"

Structure: Intro/context

Transition: why quotations around it? not as encompassing as it seems?

2. potential not achieved

Structure: discrepancy

Transition: solution?

3. appeal

Structure: why popular

Transition: solution

4. potential solution

Structure: MP

1. lack of definition

2. ROMA

BLIND REVIEW

1. lack of definition

Structure: context/background info

Transition: issue? why is this the state of affairs?

2. problematic - ROMA

Structure: discrepancy.issue with traditional approach or definition for these concepts | MP

1. "nature protection"

2. bias

BLIND REVIEW

1. P.L. rhetoric

Structure: context

Transition: APOV/MP

2. incentive

Structure: MP/APOV

1. phen

2. coping

TIME Total - 10 mins 33 secs (Passage - 4:21)

BLIND REVIEW

1. P.L. Phenomenon

Structure: context/background info on issue

Transition: future research/implications

2. control

Structure: potential solution

Transition: MP

AC D "this is a cookie cutter but not the cookie from which this argument is cut" LOL , I hope this gets out of my head for the next flaw question I see