4/27~4/30 3rd week

Oh my god. Time flies like an arrow!
I leave for Osaka(actually, Hyogo) tommorrow!
So I have to write blog now X(

In this week, we wrote ARPs of Meiland(1-10~1-12).
It was pretty hard! The most difficult thing was to make transitions fluently in paragaraphs.
I used many conjuctions to make clear connections between ideas.
However, I used a conjuction to make sentences one paragraphs in which I have to divide into two paragraphs.
And fatal mistake was my topic sentences was not at the beginning! I think I didn't recognize cleary what I wanted to discuss. That's why it happened. It is very important to make clear what is discussed about.
I'm going to look over again these mistakes and polish ARP :)

Concerned Meiland1-12~1-17, I thought it wasn't easy to read. The contents were philosophical.
I remember that I heard the word of Socrates in RCA,too. I think Scrates is a person who is indispensable for scholarship.
And there are many similarities between what Morgan and Meiland says. They are very interesting, but they confuses me a lot :(


Thanks for reading this :)
If it's possible, I going to bring souvenir in Friday class ;)

2nd (4/19~4/23)

In this week, we continued reading Meiland(1-4~1-10) and deepened our comprehension of contents.
Also, we learned about ARP with using two ARPs of Meiland. We compared them and analysed what the ARP is. The point is that a summary will depend on its discussion. The statements that are criticized in discussion have to be focused in summary, too.
While discussing the worksheet, I understood the meaning of normative statement and descriptive statement. Normative statement has to be kind of ideal and descriptive statement has to be a matter of fact. Actually, Hayato's example made me understood. Then, I found the ARPs we used in class could be an example of them. Bayne is giving a normative statement at the end of his discussion, while Hammond writes descriptive statement.