Paragraph XXXXXXXXXXwords): main argument (and how it is supported – evidence etc)
1. Isolate the main argument:
Start with a description (100 words or so) of the main argument made by the author in this article. Hint: Using the sentence ‘This article is about ….’ allows you to be vague. Instead force yourself to be precise:
This article argues that…. because…
Or Whereas some scholars say X, this article suggest that Y, because….
Or The main point of this article is to demonstrate that…..
2. Evidence underpinning argument
Somewhere in your review, in a few words ((~ XXXXXXXXXXwords) you’ll want to show your reader what you think of the evidence provided for the article’s argument.
To support their point, the authors use….to show that….
Or The evidence supporting this argument is X, as well as Y.
Or The evidence clearly supports point X, but is less convincing on point Y.
Or whereas one could point to deficiencies in X, nevertheless there is clear support for point Y
(n.b. evaluation does not mean you have to be negative. Critical means: being able to say which parts of something is good and which are not so good)
Paragraph XXXXXXXXXXwords) : Relating it to the context. Show the reader what the contribution of the article/chapter is to the
oader scholarship to the study of violence/crime/protest in Asia.
Answer the following questions:
1. How does this article allow us to understand violence/crime/protest in Asia?
2. Why it is useful? How is it different? How is it the same?
3. What does it tell us we didn’t know before?
4. Does that make us think differently / get new understanding about violence/crime/protest/underside?
Examples of some sentence structure in connecting the article to asia’s underside:
This article expands our knowledge of Crime violence and protest in Asia by pointing out X’s connection to Y. In particular, …..
Many people might think X. But as this article shows, in fact, Y….
Scholarship on country X tends to focus on aspects A, B, and C, but as this article shows, the topic Y is important to understand….
A prevalent image of X is that it functions in (a particular way). This article undermines that image, by showing that….
Whereas (reading in a previous week) showed that …., in contrast this article demonstrated that….As a result, our understanding of the definition of crime has grown to show that…..
Also consider the background of the author:
1. How do the authors themselves reflect on their contribution to scholarship? Do they make a point about their own contribution to scholarship and is it about these topics or about something else?
· Can connect to Authorship and disciplinary approach:
· consider the background of author and their main discipline. For example, are they a psychologist? A sociologist? A political scientist? If someone is an anthropologist we would not be surprised to see a long description of their experience in the field. If someone is a historian, we would not be surprised to see them exploring the past. If someone is in politics, then …. Etc etc. Note: keep it professional – what discipline do they work in, what other research have they published, are they specialists in this particular field etc. (we don’t care about personal details, gender, marital or employment status or anything like that.)
A specialist in gender studies who has published mainly on Asia, X understandably focusses on ….
The author is a linguist with extensive experience in the documentation of language x. Although they are not a literary scholar, it is precisely the attention to the structure of the language that allows them to argue that…
As a political scientist, the author pays particular attention to…..
Ideas that can be discussed in the review:
• How is crime/violence/protest described in this article? What role does it play? Is it central, or peripheral?
• Does the article focus on what prompts it, or its manifestation, or what its outcomes are? Why?
• Does the article focus on agents, or victims? Are these interchangeable or not? Why?
• Does the article connect violence/crime/protest to particular institutions/cultural forms/events?
• How do the authors themselves reflect on their contribution to scholarship? Do they make a point about their own contribution to scholarship and is it about these topics or about something else?
· Can connect to Authorship and disciplinary approach:
· consider the background of author and their main discipline. For example, are they a psychologist? A sociologist? A political scientist? If someone is an anthropologist we would not be surprised to see a long description of their experience in the field. If someone is a historian, we would not be surprised to see them exploring the past. If someone is in politics, then …. Etc etc. Note: keep it professional – what discipline do they work in, what other research have they published, are they specialists in this particular field etc. (we don’t care about personal details, gender, marital or employment status or anything like that.)
A specialist in gender studies who has published mainly on Asia, X understandably focusses on ….
The author is a linguist with extensive experience in the documentation of language x. Although they are not a literary scholar, it is precisely the attention to the structure of the language that allows them to argue that…
As a political scientist, the author pays particular attention to…..
• Is there a comparison or a contrast you can make to an earlier article, or a concept that was discussed in the lesson in week 2? For example does it match with the WHO’s definition of violence?
• Is there any moralising going on in the article? Why? Do you think that is appropriate? (It can be – don’t reject out of hand, just think about what it means)
Tips on review:
Avoid being descriptive! Use:
1. The author shows…
2. The author does….
ATS2941 review marking ru
ics and feedback week 3 assignment 1
Mark
Comments
Weighting of criterion
N
P
C
D
HD
Ability to isolate, understand and evaluate the central argument of article/chapte
45%
· Relies on description – limited or no attempt at interpretation or evaluation of central argument
· Does not demonstrate understanding of central argument
· Fails to isolate central argument
· The article/chapter is described rather than analysed, but there is minimal evidence of interpretation and evaluation.
· Demonstrates understanding of parts of article/chapter and some element of the central argument
· Some interpretation and evaluation of the central argument is visible but there may be inconsistencies.
· Generally points to central argument, but could be more precise
· A clear critical stance is evident in the interpretation and evaluation of the central argument, but missing some crucial elements.
· Isolates the central argument but may have missed a key point
· Skilful interpretation and evaluation of the central argument
· Thoroughly and accurately isolates the central argument.
Ability to relate the specific article and argument to the
oader theme of the unit 25%
· Relevant issues/problems are not identified.
· Reference to key concepts is not evident.
· Relevant issues/problems are identified, but there may be gaps.
· Reference to key concepts and theories is limited or superficial
· Relevant issues/problems are identified.
· Some integration of key concepts but may lack consistency.
· Mostly clear identification of relevant issues/problems.
· Proficient integration of key concepts to support response.
· Concise and clear identification of relevant issues/problems.
· Key concepts are well-integrated to enrich response.
Structure
15%
· The response is poorly executed and organised.
· Response contains essential elements, however, organisation and linking may be inconsistent.
· Ideas are generally well-organised.
· Ideas are clearly well-linked and balanced.
· Ideas are well-linked, balanced and clearly organized, leading to a cohesive response.
Written expression
15%
· There are numerous e
ors and inaccuracies in written expression.
· Poor use of academic language.
· Meaning and clarity is impeded by inconsistencies and inaccuracies in written expression.
· Written expression generally conveys meaning to reader, although may contain some e
ors.
· Written expression generally conveys meaning to readers. Academic language is well-controlled for accuracy and concision with only occasional e
or.
· Written expression skilfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity, concision and fluency.
‘The industry must be inconspicuous’: Japan Tobacco’s co
uption of science and health policy via the Smoking Research Foundation
e3Iida K, Proctor RN. Tob Control 2018;27:e3–e11. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol XXXXXXXXXX
‘The industry must be inconspicuous’: Japan Tobacco’s
co
uption of science and health policy via the
Smoking Research Foundation
Kaori Iida,1 Robert N Proctor2
Research pape
To cite: Iida K, Proctor RN.
Tob Control 2018;27:e3–e11.
► Additional material is
published online only. To view
please visit the journal online
(http:
dx. doi. org/ XXXXXXXXXX/
tobaccocontrol XXXXXXXXXX).
1Department of Evolutionary
Studies of Biosystems,
SOKENDAI (The Graduate
University for Advanced
Studies), Hayama, Japan
2Department of History,
Stanford University, Stanford,
California, USA
Co
espondence to
Kaori Iida, Department of
Evolutionary Studies of
Biosystems, SOKENDAI (The
Graduate University for
Advanced Studies), Hayama,
Kanagawa XXXXXXXXXX, Japan;
iida_ kaori@ soken. ac. jp
Received 31 July 2017
Revised 15 December 2017
Accepted 19 December 2017
Published Online First
4 Fe
uary 2018
► http:
dx. doi. org/ XXXXXXXXXX/
tobaccocontrol XXXXXXXXXX
AbsTRACT
Objective To investigate how and why Japan Tobacco,
Inc. (JT) in 1986 established the Smoking Research
Foundation (SRF), a research-funding institution, and to
explore the extent to which SRF has influenced science
and health policy in Japan.
Methods We analysed documents in the Truth Tobacco
Industry Documents archive, along with recent Japanese
litigation documents and published documents.
Results JT’s effort to combat effective tobacco
control was strengthened in the mid-1980s, following
privatisation of the company. While remaining under
the protection of Japan’s Ministry of Finance, the
semiprivatised company lost its ’access to politicos’,
opening up a perceived need for collaboration with
global cigarette makers. One solution, a
ived at through
clandestine planning with American companies, was to
establish a third-party organisation, SRF, with the hope
of capturing scientific and medical authority for the
industry. Guarded by powerful people in government
and academia, SRF was launched with the covert goal of
influencing tobacco policy both inside and outside Japan.
Scholars