I need 2 outline as soon as pesspol about Sadker on Hobbes and Farr and Glausser on Locke no plagiarism

Government 111 Analytical Outline (page 1) (see back) Sadker on Hobbes and Farr and Glausser on Locke In addition to reading primary texts in current political thought, you will gain exposure to some of the secondary literature about these texts (or themes within them). The analytical outline aims to sharpen your skills of analysis by having you critique the secondary reading. ASSIGNMENT 1: OUTLINES OUTLINE SCHEDULE AND POINTS ALLOTTED All students (hornets, stingers, greens, golds) will submit an analytical outline of the assigned secondary readings. The best two out of four outlines will be graded. The worst two will be dropped. Each of the graded outlines is worth 5% of your total course grade. Here are the due dates: Sadker on Hobbes Tu, 9/18 Farr and Glausser on Locke Tu, 10/9 (outline one or both articles) OUTLINE PREPARATION • Submit a hard copy of your outline to me on time (see syllabus). Late outlines will not be accepted. • Read the article carefully first. • When you are familiar with the article, begin to construct your outline. OUTLINE FORMAT • Use bullet points, type your piece, use 1 inch margins, 12 point font. You don’t need to double space. OUTLINE CONTENT • Bullet 1: In no more than 2 reasonably sized paragraphs, summarize the major argument(s), or key conceptual distinction being made. See the forest, not the trees. Tell me what the secondary author is arguing about the primary author. • Bullet 2: Based on your own reading of the primary author, write a strong paragraph where you offer a critique of the secondary author’s main argument. o In your paragraph, write a topic sentences where you say something like, “The secondary author’s major claim X is supported /undermined/ challenged/developed/extended/smashed/contradicted by the primary’s author’s claim Y. Be sure to cite the secondary and primary author. • Bullet 3: State what you find to be the intellectual significance of the piece. If a learned person read the piece over breakfast, what would the piece helped them understand about a concept or about the primary author? How does the piece contribute to a learned person’s grasp of politics? SECOND GOAL: SHARPENING ORAL PRESENTATION SKILLS DEADLINES Hornets will offer short oral presentations on September 18 Stingers will offer short oral presentations on October 9 STRUCTURE OF ORAL PRESENTATION Oral presentations are 5-8 minutes in length. Use the entire time. In your oral presentation, 1) Explain the main thesis in your own words. a. Begin with “the author’s main thesis in a nutshell is….” Or “The key conceptual distinctions in the piece include…” b. Don’t worry if previous presenters have already done this. Summarize the main thesis again. 2) Tell the audience why/how the secondary author’s thesis supports, undermines, advances your own understanding of the primary text. a. Say, “I thought Hobbes was trying to teach us B about issue A. The secondary author Y expanded, undermined, supported, challenged, confused, deepened my thinking about A and B through the secondary author’s argument Z. b. I agree/do not agree with argument Z provided by the secondary author because of argument M in the primary reading. Argument M in the primary reading challenges/supports/adds to/raises questions about argument Z in the secondary reading. 3) Repeat Step 2. Offer two critiques of the secondary author’s thesis. 4) State what you consider the significance of the piece. If a learned person or a politician read it, what would they gain from it? If you taught the piece to a 10 year old, what would you tell them is important the argument? What will it help them understand? Do Not: Don’t dwell on summarizing. Offer a brief summary of the main argument or the key concepts, but move to bullets 2 and 3 quickly. Be very concrete and explicit about what you agree with or disagree with in the secondary reading. Be very concrete and explicit about why you assess the secondary reading in the way you do. Do not use jargon. Speak as if you are talking to your 15 year old sister. Do not be vague, be crystal clear and concrete. Don’t gloss things over. Don’t assume the audience knows what you’re talking about before you tell them Don’t tell the class why you liked the piece. Tell the class why the piece is important conceptually or politically or philosophically or contextually. Tell the class why a citizen should read the piece, or a politician or an academic. Go beyond your preferences (likes and dislikes) and make an argument about the piece’s significance for people beyond yourself. Do: Do offer a clear and rich oral presentation. Use ordinary language. Explain precisely what argument you’re grappling with in the secondary and primary material. . Speak specifically and concretely. Presentation Style Be enthusiastic, clear, articulate and engaged in your presentation. Offer quotes from the primary reading to support your critique. Don’t assume the audience knows what you’re talking about. Explain yourself to the audience.