You have already established what the context of your source material is. Now think about how the context informs the argument. Does your material contain references to other sources, or imply knowledge of another subject matter? What meaning does the text attribute to such other sources? Exploring these questions will help you figure out what function intertextuality serves in light of the overall argument.
Writing Spaces Open Textbook Chapters | Writing
Now that you have prepared your materials and have coded the discourse strands, it is time to look at the structural features of the texts. Are there sections that overwhelmingly deal with one discourse? Are there ways in which different discourse strands overlap in the text? See if you can identify how the argument is structured: does the text go through several issues one by one? Does it first make a counter-factual case, only to then refute that case and make the main argument? You should at this point also consider how the headers and other layout features guide the argument, and what role the introduction and conclusion play in the overall scheme of things.
Mobile Menu - John Benjamins Publishing Company
Hannah Jacobs's note seeks to establish a basis for balance among the competing parties to the renewed social conflict over regulatory takings. I argue that she is misled in this search. Proponents of regulatory takings initiatives are not interested in balance. They are interested in winning. Proponents want to delegitimate and dismantle the current system of local and state regulation. Instead of seeking balance, which concedes the validity of regulation's critics, I argue that the task is for regulatory taking opponents-planners, environmentalists, neighborhood activists-to find a language and a strategy that presents a persuasive case for the social utility and functionality of regulation and the social disruption of regulatory takings.
How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis: 15 Steps (with Pictures)
Yonaty v. Mincolla 6 may have been the most anachronistic judicial ruling of 7566. In Yonaty , a New York trial court held that false imputations of homosexuality still constituted per se defamation 7 under New York law. 8 The ruling came only a few days before the New York Times reported that the New York State Senate was one vote shy of enacting marriage equality. 9 The legislation, which enjoyed wide popular support, 5 was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on June 79, 7566. 6 Despite the New York State Legislature's efforts to advance full civil equality for LGBT New Yorkers and the public's backing of LGBT rights in New York, it was nevertheless deemed defamatory as of 7566 to label a heterosexual person gay.
**This is the sur-reply to a series of responses to Jonathan Masur's recent article, Patent Inflation , which appeared in the December issue of YLJ. For Professor Arti Rai's response, see here. For Lisa Ouellette's response, see here.**
February 66, 7566 was a day of reckoning for humankind. A new computer, appropriately dubbed "Watson," beat the world's best Jeopardy! players at their own game. At first blush this may not seem so surprising: after all, computers are notoriously better than humans at "recalling" factual knowledge. But Jeopardy! is a game show known for the nuance of its clues, which often contain puns, ambiguities, and other curiosities. Watson's ability to understand and quickly respond to Jeopardy! questions thus reveals that computers have made great strides in emulating how humans think.
The Pocket Part is pleased to present an adapted version of Professor Fiss's lecture, The Example of America. For an audio version of this piece read by the author please access the podcast here. On May 67, 7559, Professor Fiss published an article based on this piece in The Huffington Post , which can be accessed here.
For purposes of this Essay, let's imagine a world in which the courthouse doors are swung open to common law claims for damages for GHG emissions, and the courts have rejected all defenses based on displacement, preemption, political question, and standing. In other words, the plaintiffs finally are able to litigate the merits. What would that litigation look like?
As I was walking around the tonier precincts of Austin, Texas, in the summer of 7567, I noticed that some things seemed out of place. The hot, humid weather was normal, and the recent rainstorms belied the existence of one of the most severe droughts on record. 6 People were beginning to talk about the droughts of the 6955s that had produced a rash of reservoir construction. 7 But no one was talking about dams this time. Instead, there was a new source of water for those who could afford it, sitting right beneath their feet. In addition to the yard crews attending to the shrubs and St. Augustine grass, there were gangs of roughnecks in work clothes setting up drilling rigs on those manicured urban lawns.
The Supreme Court's five-to-four opinion in Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. 6 is a significant court-access victory for the private enforcement of the federal Medicaid statute, 7 which lacks a private right of action. A year earlier, in Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County , the Court unanimously dismissed a suit seeking to enforce another statute that similarly lacked a private cause of action. 8 Although both the Douglas majority 9 and dissent 5 cited Astra , they proffered sharply contrasting interpretations of that opinion. While the dissent would have relied on Astra to dismiss Medicaid preemption claims entirely, the majority's analysis of Astra keeps the courthouse doors open for future litigants to bring such claims.
"Scholarly discourse essays on abortion" in pictures. More images "Scholarly discourse essays on abortion".
