Entry #7 Metacognitive Analysis:

1. Paragraph ONE: YOUR PARAGRAPH (TOPIC SENTENCE + BODY +  CONCLUSION SENTENCE)

   Rationalism ,in the hands of the right ones, help us to find ephemeral truths from our reality. A person claims a statement after a detailed observation through logical experimentation. The following example will enlighten us:  “Canal Encuentro” released a few series of documentaries about myths and facts, among them, The Loch Ness Monster documentary made a real impression on me: A scientist went to the Loch Ness River and observed its biosphere, and came to the conclusion that the Loch Ness Monster would never sustain its existence in such a place. The monster would simply starve to death without any resource to keep itself alive. The scientist observed and applied his logic in order to produce convincing arguments to support the fact that “The Loch Ness monster will never survive in such a place”. In rationalism, the scientist produced a statement supported by arguments that were the result of logical experimentation. On the other hand, ordinary people have an interesting way of twisting arguments to produce a fact.  Cynics produce a statement which is supported by an irrational distrust with a negative connotation. A partial number of Argentineans in reference to certain subjects would produce vulgar statements such as : “Hay que matarlos a todos”, “son todos vagos”, “que negros de mierda!” or “estos afanan a lo loco, como se rascan…”  and immediately reinforce those statements with cynical smiles using short phrases such as: “no vamos a cambiar nada”, “es el país que nos toco”, or “es así”. The lack of arguments can be often replaced by conclusions that denote economic sensibility nurtured by an aggressive capitalist culture. The problem is not that ordinary Argentineans have this thought; the problem is that graduated people, with relevant positions in this society such as teachers, politicians or journalists, act based on irrational principles that would irremediably produce drastic effects in our lives. The irresponsibility of these people is the consequence of impunity in our culture, but that is not valid justification for their current irresponsibility in their duties, Heidegger classified this attitude in which the being-there consumes not to understand the world but in order to see. Consequently, people have the impossibility to understand by themselves because they only consume information to satisfy their immediate desires. The importance of a valid source to support arguments to reach the truth and opinions has to be taught by those whose roles have an effect on our population; A serious rational compromise with the truth has to be led by politicians, teachers and anyone with influence to support freedom, diversity in thinking and real peace. 

Source:

Heidegger, M. (1927). El ser y el tiempo: El ser-ahí y la caída del ser-ahí – la avidez de novedades.    México: Editorial Efe (2010)

1. Paragraph TWO:    YOUR MATE'S TOPIC SENTENCE + YOUR BODY+ YOUR MATE'S CONCLUSION SENTENCE

   A social understanding of the importance of reason can lead us to a better reality. A person claims a statement after a detailed observation through logical experimentation. The following example will enlighten us:  “Canal Encuentro” released a few series of documentaries about myths and facts, among them, The Loch Ness Monster documentary made a real impression on me: A scientist went to the Loch Ness River and observed its biosphere, and came to the conclusion that the Loch Ness Monster would never sustain its existence in such a place. The monster would simply starve to death without any resource to keep itself alive. The scientist observed and applied his logic in order to produce convincing arguments to support the fact that “The Loch Ness monster will never survive in such a place”. In rationalism, the scientist produced a statement supported by arguments that were the result of logical experimentation. On the other hand, ordinary people have an interesting way of twisting arguments to produce a fact.  Cynics produce a statement which is supported by an irrational distrust with a negative connotation. A partial number of Argentineans in reference to certain subjects would produce vulgar statements such as : “Hay que matarlos a todos”, “son todos vagos”, “que negros de mierda!” or “estos afanan a lo loco, como se rascan…”  and immediately reinforce those statements with cynical smiles using short phrases such as: “no vamos a cambiar nada”, “es el país que nos toco”, or “es así”. The lack of arguments can be often replaced by conclusions that denote economic sensibility nurtured by an aggressive capitalist culture. The problem is not that ordinary Argentineans have this thought; the problem is that graduated people, with relevant positions in this society such as teachers, politicians or journalists, act based on irrational principles that would irremediably produce drastic effects in our lives. The irresponsibility of these people is the consequence of impunity in our culture, but that is not valid justification for their current irresponsibility in their duties, Heidegger classified this attitude in which the being-there consumes not to understand the world but in order to see. Consequently, people have the impossibility to understand by themselves because they only consume information to satisfy their immediate desires. The importance of a valid source to support arguments to reach the truth and opinions has to be taught by those whose roles have an effect on our population; Societies are more favourable to succeed in their administrations with a consciousness in the importance of rationalism. 

1. Paragraph THREE: metacongnitive analysis

METACOGNITIVE ANALYSIS:

·                     Does the overall meaning vary?

·                     Is one sentence better than the other? Why?

·                     Which sentence(s) best reflects the content of the paragraph?

·                     Are there good synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms in the 1st and last sentences?

·                     Has wording been avoided?

·                     Is there any repetition?

·                     Is every element in the paragraph included in the TS? And in the Conclusion sentence?

NB: You need not answer EVERY QUESTION. They're just a guide.

Metacognitive Analysis

There is no difference in meaning in both sentences, both follow the same argument. In my opinion, I prefer the second TS and CS because not only reflect the content of the paragraph but also avoid wordiness. Repetition is  another good point to remark that the second TS and CS is way much better than the former ones, making the point clearer.

ISFD 41
Fos, María Soledad
Moyano, Federico