Select Page

You are required to turn in six annotations for sources used in your Researched Argument essay. Your entries should begin with your MLA or APA citation, a paragraph for your summary, a paragraph for your analysis, and a paragraph for your discussion of implementation.Good annotations will be at least two-thirds of a page or more, with specifics in each paragraph.Overview:Annotated bibliographies expand on works cited or reference page entries, adding summary, description, analysis, and evaluation for each source. An entry may only be a few sentences, serving to sum up a text without offering insight into the source or explanation of how the source applies to our research. Consider this example:Barnard, Ian. “The Ruse of Clarity.” College Composition and Communication. 61.3 (2010): 434-451. Critical evaluation of the concept of “clarity” in student writing. Article examines several definitions of “clarity” currently used in academics and the possible impact on effective college writing.The above is an example of a descriptive annotation, in which the author avoids expressing an opinion about the text. In other words, a descriptive annotation focuses on summary.Most annotations, however, provide more than summary, and commonly synthesize opinion, analysis, and explanation of applicability and implementation to our writing project. Assignment: For this class you will do this expanded form of annotated bibliography. There are four key parts you are required to include in each annotation:Citation in MLA or APA style. Please refer to an appropriate reference text or website. Please alphabetize all entries, and use your citation style consistently. Summary: A detailed summary of the source. Include all main perspectives and points; readers should come away from this section with a clear understanding of the source. (One paragraph of at least several sentences.) Analysis: A thoughtful and critical analysis of the source. Your annotations should include more technical language (claims, warrants, appeals, etc.) the further we progress in the class. Some sample questions that might help you are: What are their claims, supports, and warrants and how effective are these? What appeals are they using? What proofs are they using? What is missing from their argument? What is strong? Why is it strong or weak? How do you perceive someone from an opposing viewpoint reacting to this? What credibility does the author have? (One paragraph of at least several sentences.)Implementation—how does this source and their argument contribute to your research/papers/arguments? What specifically will you use? Be sure to quote/summarize important points. If you will not use it, why not? For a source you will not use, was there anything that could still contribute to your research? (At least a few sentences.)By the end of your annotation readers should have a clear overview of the source, an understanding of its key parts, and an understanding of why you chose the source.Example of an evaluative annotation:Alwes, Karla. Imagination Transformed: The Evolution of the Female Character in Keats’s Poetry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. A comprehensive study of Keats’s struggle to define his ideas and relationship to women and poetry. Alwes looks at how Keats’s identity emerges through female characters, and how that identity evolves over the course of his writings, his poetry in particular. Her analysis is organized linearly, beginning in 1817, and progressing through his poetry and letters to “Fall” and “To Autumn.” Alwes studies the differences between the Mnemosyne of “Hyperion” and the Moneta/Mnemosyne of “Fall,” looking in particular at the shifts of intensity and character development. Two ideas overlay Alwes approach to Moneta/Mnemosyne: the presence of evolution of androgyny in Keats’s poetry, Moneta/Mnemosyne representing the end product; and, the role of the male character and male idealism in gender. Despite Alwes’ thorough consideration of Keats’ poetry and personal history, a clear critique of Romantic patriarchal influences emerges in early pages. Alwes’ emphasis on androgyny, for example, seems to suggest Keats used poetry to explore repressed insecurities about gender, insecurities influenced by his relationship with Fanny Brawn and by the death of his mother. Surrounded most of the time by men like Hunt and Shelley, who both defined yet existed outside of masculine ideals, Keats, Alwes implies, struggled to find his own identity within the often-feminine aspects of poetry. Viewed in a historical context, Alwes’ assessment carries a modernist bias against the social hierchachy of the nineteenth century. The applicability of Alwes’ analysis must therefore be interpreted through a post-modernist framework.In answering my original research question, “What is the role of Moneta/Mnemosyne,” I cannot dismiss the significance of gender and patriarchal influence on Keats and the characters. Alwes’ insights into Keats’ struggle with gender identity lend credibility to other critics’ claims that Keats’ poetry, particularly his fragments, served as much as an outward indication of his insecurity as an inward exploration of identity, will lend further credibility to other sources and will allow me to contrast gender to my argument about the shift of Keats’ authorial presence from epic to introspective.Other examples may be found in the Supplemental Documents folder in Blackboard.The goals of this assignment are to practice evaluating sources critically and to demonstrate your ability to find and use sources in rhetorical writing.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
ENG 301 Misconception of the Iraqi Threat to American Democracy
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

English 301
Rogerian Argument
Sajad Alsadah
Importance of home treatment over hospital treatment
In the old days of civilization and for a long time afterward, treating patients has been a
major challenge especially with the lack of proper dynamics and resources. However, times have
changed and unlike the traditional ways of handling illness among patients, technology has
overtaken many traditional thoughts, believes and actions. Arguably, the major debate here is
about the dynamics of home treatment and hospital treatment: the significant benefits and
limitations of psychiatric treatment in various settings as well as the medicinal needs of patients in
hospital and those at home (Boccalon p.1769-1773). In this regard, Neuman (2019) argues that
there never existed institutions that could commit to the care of patients since the afflicted could
be kept in the house while they wait to be attended to by traditional medicine men and women.
This is very different from the modern technologies where the afflicted are taken to modern
hospitals fitted with modern facilities.
While most individuals receive hospital treatment, a fraction of them still believe that home
treatment probably better for them. This is because it saves on resources such as spending too
much on bills and having to be attended to by qualified doctors and nurses (Teich p. 56-58). In
contrast, most researchers believe that home patients get to receive the best treatment and care
since they are able to interact with friends, family, and being treated at the comfort of their homes.
As I look into the advantages and disadvantages of home treatment and hospital treatment, I tend
to believe that hospital treatment is much more beneficial to patients. However, with the support
of many psychiatrists, many would argue that it is in fact important for patients to be treated at
home where they can receive formal treatment and be able to interact with their family members
and friends: which is normal and acceptable (Wisbrod p.69-89). The middle ground here is the fact
that as much as hospitals have modern facilities and well-trained doctors and nurses, it is important
to expose patients to environments where they are able to meet and interact with their family
members just to help them develop mentally and psychologically. As if to be fair enough, I do not
intend to criticize the general objective that hospitals are important bedrocks for patients to receive
formal treatment. It is in fact, advisable for patients to be closer to their relatives and friends to be
happy and be able to react quickly to medication (Neuman 2019).
I support the general fact that mental disregard and sometimes, negligence causes many
patients to fall victims of home treatment. It is however clear from most hospital surveys that
certain patients would suddenly heal when they step foot at their homes (Teich P. 61-62).
Therefore, the mere fact that hospitals are important sites for treatment is ill advised. However,
contrary to what most people think, the potentiality of a patient committing suicide while in the
hospital is higher compared to when the patient is at home. This alone is enough to prove that
patients are actively suicidal when locked up in hospital wards because normally they have no one
to talk to or share their disappointments. (Boccalon p. 1769-1773) While I tend to agree with some
scholars on the need to have caregivers in hospitals alongside nurses and other aides, it is necessary
not to hold patients for too long in hospitals but instead release them to their homes just to have
the benefit of interacting with relatives and friends. As I contemplate on the benefits of home
treatment, it is also necessary to argue that hospital treatment has the disadvantage of not giving
patients’ time to have routine exercises and constant counseling. However, hospital should only
be preserved for psychotic patients who are not aware of their sickness and are seriously sick. As
I contemplate on informing my audience on the importance and limitations of home treatment, it
is important to note that patients whose conditions have worsened are advised to receive treatment
in hospitals so that doctors can observe them closely. However, not all patients are to be treated in
hospitals. Patients’ illness varies with time and type of illness. Therefore, it is important to observe
patients’ conditions before rushing them to hospitals. In this regard, some patients would require
signals of their loved ones or someone close to them just for them to be healed.
On the other hand, some patients need to be taken to the hospital just to separate them from
substances of abuse such as drugs and alcohol. While most hospitals inpatient and outpatient units
Boccalon (p 1769-1773 ) argues that patients’ need for treatment would be undertaken more easily
within an hospital than when the patient is at home. To some extent, I agree with the argument but
contrary to what home patients enjoy in terms of freedom and space, it is not logical to decongest
patients in hospitals as a way of attending one at a time. Patients need space; sirens and unnecessary
noise from other patients or objects need not interrupt them. In this regard, the physical need of
the patient begs for informed decisions from both the doctor and the caregiver because the merit
of a particular hospital balances against the alternatives. (Teich p. 58-60) However, I believe that
some hospitals are equally awful, demeaning and cruel to say the least. In contrast, some families
do not perform regular checkups on their patients’ whole at home, which goes against the rights
of a sick person (Neuman 2019). Ideally, most individuals argue that hospitals protect patients by
giving them the therapeutic attention and perhaps the required medicine as well as encouraging
them to express their thoughts and feelings.
Concurrently, mental health hospitals are ideal and specific in terms of treatment and cure.
Nevertheless, even under the best of circumstances, many regard mental hospitals as definitive
solutions to problems related to emotional being. (Teich p. 52-61) Arguably, it becomes unclear
whether time is an important factor with patients being treated at home. Despite coping with the
various phases of illness, it becomes difficult to begin a course of treatment at home or continue
the more important period of aftercare. In such situations, arguing based on the time of treatment
or availability of necessary medicine would work only with patients who are in hospital
notwithstanding. In an attempt to discredit efforts made by family members and friends to provide
for the home patient, most people would argue that hospitals have the best caregivers and doctors
are available every time the patients experience some complications. In fact, home patients receive
the best cure in terms of care, exercise and of course an environment where the patient gets to
interact freely with neighbors and the community (Boccalon p. 1771-1773). As if to belittle doctors
and nurses in hospitals, home patients are able to identify their body weaknesses so easily and be
able to respond to treatment even without doctor or nurse aide. In fact, Boccalon p. 1770-1773
argues that home patients respond quickly to treatment compared to patients in hospital.
In conclusion, it is agreeable that in fact, home treatment is important for patients simply
because patients tend to react quickly to treatment while at home compared to when they are in
hospital. As much as hospitals are important because of closeness to important medical facilities
and closeness to doctors and nurses, home treatment exposes the patient to an environment where
he/she is able to interact with family members and therefore the psychological thinking of such
patients becomes positive. In this regard, it is necessary to agree that patients are emotional and
sensitive human beings who need a lot of care and attention. Any possible attempt to disregard
them will lead to them believing that they do not add value to their families and friends. The
agreeable argument here is that home treatment is more important compared to hospital treatment
because home patients are able to interact freely with family members and friends as they respond
to treatment. In fact, as indicated by researchers and scholars, home treatment is important for the
patient because, contrary to the kind of treatment hospital patients receive, home patients enjoy
the space that comes with a relaxed environment with no disturbances. Therefore, it is important
for the health agencies and organizations to consider home treatment as key to saving more lives.
Works Cited
Boccalon, Henri, et al. “Clinical outcome and cost of hospital vs home treatment of proximal deep
vein thrombosis with a low-molecular-weight heparin: the Vascular Midi-Pyrenees study.”
Archives of internal medicine 160.12 (2014): 1769-1773.
Weisbrod, Burton A., Mary Ann Test, and Leonard I. Stein. “Alternative to mental hospital
treatment: II. Economic benefit-cost analysis.” Archives of General Psychiatry
Teich, Nathaniel. “Rogerian problem-solving and the rhetoric of argumentation.” Journal of
Advanced Composition (1987): 52-61.
Neuman, Fredrick. “Psychiatric Hospitalization Vs. Treatment At Home.” Psychology Today.
N.p., 2019. Web. 20 Feb. 2019.
Sajad Alsadah
ENG 301
Written Researched Argument
8th February 2019
Misconception of the Iraqi Threat to American Democracy during the Iraq War
The US invasion of Iraq .. False justifications and disastrous results!
The fall of Soviet Union in the early 90s and the 9/11 attacks during the turn of the
millennium had direct impact on the policy matters of the American government. The development
of the Iraq War which started in 2003 began under the Bush administration. The reasons for the
war was as a result of big misconceptions in which it was thought that the war was a straight
response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers which killed thousands of US citizens.
The Bush administration was under pressure to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. In a real
sense there was no clear evidence of the connection between Iraq and the terrorist attack. Terrorism
had now become a significant problem for the Bush administration, and it brought the feeling that
the values of the American people had dwindled. Saddam Hussein’s regime was to be abolished
by the United States and confiscate all the weapons of mass destruction which were thought to be
in Iraq. From the onset of the war, the primary intention of the United States was to mainly take
down the leadership of Saddam Hussein from the government of Iraq. For the Bush administration
to undertake the decision, they had to find support from other international bodies. This was
because the United States law did not give the president the right to solely give the decision of
going to war with another country. However, the United States did not know the War would take
eight years for them to accomplish their mission completely. The War gained global attention since
the presence of the United States troops mission became complex, and they had developed the
renewed mission of combating the threat of terrorism in the whole of Middle East (Britton, 2006).
The environment was much heightened due to the 9/11 incident, and the Bush administration faced
a significant outcry from its supporters and the media. The attack had meant that the liberty, safety
and values of democracy of the American people had been taken away.
From the outset, the removal of Saddam Hussein was received with sympathy, though it
was a feeling which represented a small group of Americans. The majority of the citizens were
wholly inclined to believing that Iraq had played a major role in supporting the al Qaeda terrorist
group. Keeping this in mind, the people were not completely convinced that those reasons would
justify the process of taking action unilaterally. Some of the citizens had the view that there should
be more decisive evidence to warrant the attack on the Saddam Hussein regime. The United States
did not find evidence which was expected to warrant them to remove Saddam from power. At this
time, the Bush administration felt that it was precise to start the war. The development of many
misconceptions, therefore, justified the process of the United States going to war with Iraq. The
role of the media played a vital role in the process of conducting the war (Fry, 2011). The Program
on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) had carried out a series of polls which brought out
findings of the degree of pervasiveness of the misperceptions which were present as a result of the
9/11 attacks.
Before the war started and after it ended a significant number of Americans have held the
opinion that there was the existence of links between the Saddam Hussein administration and al
Qaeda. PIPA polls showed that 68 per cent had the belief that the Iraq administration of that time
played a crucial role in the 9/11 attacks. Most of these individuals that the polls were held on also
expressed a strong feeling that the United States had found conclusive evidence which warranted
the ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. An overwhelming number of United States citizens
strongly believed that Iraq had a considerable number of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
It was however shocking for the United States military when they failed to find the weapons. It
was also found out that the American citizens were incorrect on their belief that Iraq had used
WMD in the war between them and the United States. The United States public support of the
Bush Administration going for the war was also exacerbated by international legitimacy
(Gershkoff & Kushner, 2005).
A majority of countries built international support and held the opinion that going for the
war would solve the issue of terrorism. Other PIPA polls showed that a majority of the American
citizens had misperceived their views on the issue of the Iraq War. Among these findings was the
fact that some individuals acknowledged that they had not seen any evidence surrounding the start
of the war but still believed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Americans who supported
the war also stated that the linking of Iraq to al Qaeda was a supporting reason the decision of the
Bush administration to go to war. When the war ended a vast number of the respondents had
mistakenly held the belief that Saddam Hussein was indeed in close connection with the al Qaeda
and that evidence had been found (Kull et al., 2003).
The Bush administration on the other side was very determined to carry out the war. Prior
to the invasion, the Bush administration had successfully peppered media airwaves with
accusations which were mainly against the Saddam Hussein leadership in Iraq. They also claimed
that Iraq was in plans to purchase uranium in their efforts of preparing for the War (Gershkoff &
Kushner, 2005). Since they did not have concrete proof of these claims, they had to continue
repeating the accusations incessantly in order to justify the process of undertaking the attack on
Saddam Hussein. Bush himself was not in a position to solely make the decision of carrying out
an attack on another nation hence the administration had to lay these claims in order to get support
from bodies like the United Nations (Owens, 2007). The implications of the numerous claims
became apparent, and with that environment, the decision to go for the war was made.
After the war, it has been discovered that the claims which were laid by the Bush
administration on the Iraq administration were unreal. George Bush and Tony Blair’s decision to
support the course of the war resulted in more than 250000 people getting killed (Roth, 2006). The
report from the UK administration also explains that the officials of intelligence had foreseen a
massive number of people getting killed with instability and the presence of societal collapse. The
US government had therefore created a horrific tragedy which did not have any concrete reasons.
The process also proved that the Bush administration had on numerous occasions out rightly
fabricated conclusions to its public announcements. The Iraq failure was not just a case of wellmeaning, but it was as a result of policymakers who were incompetent, and they just rushed into
what they should not have rushed into before careful analysis had been done.
It can be averred that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant leader who did not relent in any way
about his political opponents and neighbors. He was also in the process of creating weapons which
violated the UN resolutions. With this, the United States had to take cautious steps in the process
of attacking Iraq. It was inappropriate for the Bush administration to misinform the United States
citizens about the state of events which led to the attack on Iraq. Most soldiers died in the war by
believing in a wrong cause. The media should not have played into the hands of the misconceptions
since they were the main channel at which the public opinion was swayed. Therefore the
democracy of the American people was compromised in the sense that the real facts of the matter
were not clearly handled.
This paper is a clarification concerning the issue of Iraq during the reign of Saddam
Hussein. Also, the role of media in the spread of propaganda is clarified, at the same time
expounding various aspect of the American constitution and how they were exploited to
accomplish different objectives of the Bush regime. I started writing this paper about the Iraq War
then I found out this topic is too general. Then I decided to change the topic and be more specific
and focus. Then i decided to write about the misconception of the Iraqi Threat to American
Democracy during the Iraq War. In my opinion, I did not really get enough comments from the
peer review because only one person read this paper. So, I went to the writing center this morning
(Wednesday 2/13/19) to get more comments. But I could not use them to improve my paper
because I do not have enough time to do that. Hopefully, I will use the comments to improve my
paper for the final submission (writing Portfolio).
IRAQ. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 25(1), 125-141.
Fry, K. (2011). Hannah Arendt and the War in Iraq. Philosophical Topics, 39(2), 41-51.
Gershkoff, A., & Kushner, S. (2005). Shaping public opinion: The 9/11-Iraq connection in the
Bush administration’s rhetoric. Perspectives on Politics, 3(3), 525-537.
Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War. Political
Science Quarterly, 118(4), 569-598.
Owens, P. (2007). Beyond Strauss, Lies, and the War in Iraq: Hannah Arendt’s Critique
of Neoconservatism. Review of International Studies, 33(2), 265-283.
Roth, K. (2006). Was the Iraq war a humanitarian intervention? Journal of Military Ethics, 5(2),

Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP