I have five topic I need you to read and write a response journal and answer a few questions.

A-http://bobbyhundreds.tumblr.com/post/13597404539/the-santa-ana-by-joan-didion 1.) Response Journal B- https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/my-life-as-a-retail-worker-nasty-brutish-and-poor/284332/ 1.) How did this piece make you feel? 2.) Would you consider this a Narrative? Why? 3.) What are the Who, What, When, Where and Why? 4.) This is a story about one man’s experience. What makes it relevant to all of us? How does the author convey that? 5.) Content, regardless of the type (lyrics, novels, news articles, etc), will often include a “tension”. Quite simply, this is a struggle/conflict between two sides, and that conflict is often responsible for weaving the story together. For example, in the brief donations piece we read, we can highlight a tension between altruism and realistic need. After readering, think about the piece you’ve been assigned. What tensions do you think exist? They may be specific to the author or appeal to a broader audience. C- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/abraham-lincoln-is-an-idiot/309304/ Respond in your Response Journal. 1.) What makes the author credible? 2.) What are your thoughts on word choice? 3.) How does the author use examples, and what, if any, abstract concept are they reinforcing. D- https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/evolve 1.) Does the author appeal to ethos, pathos and logos? If so, how? Is one appeal more predominate? 2.) What do Shellenberg and Nordhaus mean by the "coevolution of humans and nature"? 3.) Explain what the authors mean by "postmaterial constituencies" Who are these people, generally, and what do Shellenberger and Nordhaus say about them? 4.) Explain the authors' take on global warming. How will it impact civilization? 5.) Explain Latour's understanding of mary Shelley's Frankenstein. How does his reader support Shellenberger and Nordhaus's main idea? F- https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/05/lies-hollywood-told-us-love-and-romance-edition/328637/ 1.) How did the author use illustrations? 2.) Was the author classifying or dividing? Why? 3.) Explain the function of Lawson and Doll's opening statement. How does their first claim relate to or support their main point? 4.) Unlike many articles, especially more formal works written in an academic setting, this article uses the second-person pronoun "you" to address readers directly. How does that affect your understanding of the point? How does it influence the way you read it? 5.) Lawson and Doll take on and refute a range of typical romance movie formulas -- and suggest specific movies along the way. How does this strategy work for the overall success of the article? Why is it better or worse not to continue listing specific characters or plots throughout the article? 6.) What is the thesis? If it's not easily identifiable, write your own.