Week 12 · Chapter

Chapter 12 — The Research-Based Argument

English Composition Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 5 (find, evaluate, and integrate credible sources: turn a topic into a research question, classify sources, judge credibility by lateral reading and a checklist, and quote, paraphrase, summarize, and synthesize with signal phrases and attribution — never patchwriting, never plagiarizing, and never trusting an unverified quotation, source, or citation), Objective 4 (compose in multiple rhetorical modes — narration and exposition, rhetorical analysis, and argument — using the appeals (ethos, pathos, logos, kairos) to explain how a real text persuades and the structure of argument (claim, grounds, warrant, counterargument, rebuttal) to build your own, arguing from evidence and representing opposing views fairly), Objective 6 (document sources in MLA style — in-text citations in the author-page form and a works-cited list built on the ninth edition's template of core elements and containers — and apply MLA formatting conventions accurately, checking any generator's or chatbot's entry against the template and the real source) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the tutorial, the quiz, the Writing Studio, and your research-based argument essay all build on it.

In plain language

This week you put your sources to work for a claim of your own. A report (writing that passes along what sources say) collects; an argument makes a case, and its sources back up the writer's claim instead of replacing it. You learn to bring each source in with the four-part integration move (a signal phrase, the quotation or paraphrase, the citation, and your own analysis). Then you put sources in conversation, answer the other side with real evidence, keep your own voice in charge of every page, and check that your citations and your works-cited list match. You practice on the running draft about phone-free lecture sections and its four real sources, including a 2016 study by Louis-Philippe Beland and Richard Murphy.

Why you already care about this

Picture two friends pitching the same budgeting app to your group of roommates. The first friend reads four app-store reviews out loud, one after another, and then stops. Everyone nods. Nobody downloads anything.

The second friend says, "We keep going over budget on takeout, about three nights a week. This app flags takeout spending before it happens. Two reviewers said the alert changed their habits in the first month." Then she adds, "One reviewer hated the ads, but the free version lets you turn alerts on without them." That pitch has a claim, evidence, an answer to the first objection anyone would raise, and a reason it matters to you. By the end of the night, three people have the app.

Both friends used the same reviews. Only one of them made an argument. The difference was never the sources; it was what the speaker did with them. Over the last three weeks you chose sources, brought them in honestly, and documented them. This week you learn to do what the second friend did.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

tell a report from an argument, and turn a paragraph of sources into a paragraph that argues;
put two or more sources in conversation and name how they relate: agree, extend, or disagree;
integrate any source with the four-part move: signal phrase, quotation or paraphrase, citation, and analysis;
repair a dropped quotation and cite every paraphrase;
state the strongest objection to your claim with real evidence and answer it;
check that your voice leads each paragraph and that your citations and works-cited list match both ways;
refuse any chatbot-supplied quotation, source, or citation until you have opened the source and found it.

Carry this sentence with you: your claim leads; your sources follow.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 4, Thesis & Essay Structure, gave the running draft its working thesis. Week 7, Argument: Claims, Evidence & Warrants, taught you to back a claim with grounds and a warrant and to answer a counterargument. Week 9, Research: Finding & Evaluating Sources, chose the draft's four real sources. Week 10, Integrating Sources, taught quotation, paraphrase, summary, the signal phrase, and a first look at synthesis. Week 11, MLA Documentation, taught the in-text citation and the works-cited entry.
This week: the research-based argument. You tell argument from report, name how sources relate, integrate each source in four parts, and repair dropped quotations. You also cite paraphrases, answer the other side with sources, keep the balance of voices, match citations to the list, and test a chatbot's citation.
How they connect: each of the last three weeks taught one skill on its own. This week they meet inside one essay, and each one serves the claim you set up in Week 7.
Where we're going next: Week 13, Revision & Style, takes the full draft you build here and teaches you to re-see it as a whole before you polish a single sentence.

Three earlier ideas carry this chapter. From Week 7, an argument has a claim (the point you want a reader to accept), grounds (the evidence), and a warrant (the usually unstated assumption that makes the evidence count). From Week 10, a signal phrase is the lead-in that names a source before you use it, and synthesis puts sources in conversation instead of in a list. From Week 11, an in-text citation such as (Beland and Murphy 61) points to a full entry in the works-cited list. This week you use all three in one essay.

1. Tell an argument from a report

Think back to the two friends and the budgeting app. The first friend gave a report: she passed along what the reviews said. The second friend gave an argument: she made a case, and the reviews helped her make it. A research paper can go either way, and the difference shows up in the first sentence of each paragraph.

A report is a piece of writing that collects and passes along what sources say without making a case of its own.
A research-based argument is an argument essay whose claim belongs to the writer and whose evidence comes from credible sources that are integrated, cited, and answered. It is an argument first; the research is its evidence.

The running draft has been building toward this essay all term. Its working thesis (Model A, Stage 2), written for this course and attributed to no one, is the claim every source must now serve:

"Our college should make lecture sections phone-free by default, with a stated exception for documented accommodations and emergencies, because the benefit falls hardest on the students who struggle most and the cost to everyone else is small."

Worked example — the same sources, reported and argued. Both paragraphs are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one, and both use the running draft's real sources.

The report paragraph: "Amy reports that a majority of U.S. states now ban or regulate phones in schools. Beland and Murphy studied schools in four English cities that banned phones. The Department for Education has published guidance on phones in schools. Carr writes about how the internet shapes attention."
Count what it does. It has 4 sentences. Each one opens with a source, and 0 of them state the writer's claim. It is a list of what other people said.
The argument paragraph (Model A, Stage 4, with this week's one change): "The strongest reason for a phone-free default is that the benefit is not spread evenly. Research on schools that banned phones found the gain in exam results concentrated among the lowest-achieving students, while higher-achieving students were largely unaffected (Beland and Murphy 61). That pattern matters for a policy decision: a rule that costs most students little and helps the students with the least slack is a rule a college can defend. The same logic explains why an exception for documented needs does not undo the policy — it protects the students the policy exists for."
Count what it does. The topic sentence is the writer's claim. One source supplies the evidence. The last two sentences are the writer's own reasoning about why that evidence matters.

In words: the report hands the reader four sources and stops. The argument hands the reader a claim, one piece of evidence for it, and the reasoning that connects them. The second paragraph uses fewer sources and does more.

A quick test helps. Read only the first sentence of each paragraph in your draft. If those sentences name sources ("Amy reports", "A study found"), you may be writing a report. If they state your points, you are writing an argument.

Misconception check — the research paper written as a report. Students often think a research paper's job is to show everything the research found. It is tempting because finding sources took real work, and it feels wasteful to leave any out. But a reader of an argument wants your case, not a tour of your search. The cure is to open each paragraph with your point and bring in only the sources that help prove it.

Misconception check — "a good source makes my argument for me." Students also think that a strong enough source can stand in for their own reasoning. It is tempting because the source sounds expert. But even the best study answers its own question, not yours. Beland and Murphy studied schools in England; only the writer can explain why their finding matters for a college lecture hall.

2. Put your sources in conversation

Imagine three coworkers at a shift meeting talking about a broken ice machine. One says it stopped working on the weekend. The second says that is the third time this year, so the repair is not holding. The third says the repair costs less than a new machine, but only if it lasts. The manager listening does not hear three facts. She hears a conversation, and she decides to replace the machine.

Week 10 gave this move its name. Synthesis is putting two or more sources in conversation around the writer's own point, so the reader sees how they agree, extend, or push against each other instead of meeting them as a list. This week you name the relationship out loud.

The synthesis moves are the three relationships a writer names when putting sources in conversation: one source agrees with another, extends it by explaining why or for whom, or disagrees with it or complicates it.

Worked example — the running draft's synthesis paragraph. The paragraph is illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one. The words in single quotation marks are copied exactly from the abstract of Beland and Murphy's article.

"Phone-free rules are no longer an experiment, and the research explains who they help. Amy reports that a majority of U.S. states now ban or regulate phones in schools, and the Department for Education's guidance shows schools in England how they can prohibit phone use through the school day. As Beland and Murphy argue, 'the unstructured presence of phones has detrimental effects on certain students' (61), and the students they identify are the ones a college most needs to reach. Together, these sources show a rule already in wide use and a reason it works. What none of them shows is a college lecture hall, so that last step is the case this essay has to make for itself."

Agree: the guidance page agrees with the news article that institutions are acting on phones. One is a news report on U.S. states; the other is official guidance in England. Two different kinds of source point the same way.
Extend: Beland and Murphy extend both by explaining whom the rule helps. The first two sources show what is happening; the study suggests why it matters.
Disagree: the writer's last sentence names where the sources fall short. None of them studied a college lecture hall. Naming that gap is a kind of disagreement with any reader who thinks the sources settle the question.

That is 3 relationships, each named in the writer's own words. The words that name them are small: "and", "Together", "What none of them shows". Those small words are where the synthesis lives.

In words: a list makes the reader connect the sources. Synthesis does the connecting for the reader, and the connection is your thinking on the page.

Misconception check — source-dumping. Students often think a paragraph with more sources in it is a stronger paragraph. It is tempting because each source adds weight. But source-dumping is piling sources into a paragraph one after another with little or none of the writer's own reasoning between them. It turns an argument back into a report. The cure is to add a source only when you can name its relationship to the one before it.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) think of a time two people gave you advice that seemed to clash, and say what one sentence would have connected them.
(b) think of a news story you followed in more than one place, and say whether the second account agreed with the first, extended it, or complicated it.

3. Use the four-part integration move

A good relay team needs more than fast runners. Each runner takes the baton in the passing zone, runs a full leg, and hands it off cleanly. Drop the baton at either end and the team is out of the race, however fast the legs were. Bringing a source into your sentence has its own passing zones.

The four-part integration move is the classroom model for bringing a source into a sentence: a signal phrase that names the source, the quotation or paraphrase, the MLA in-text citation, and the writer's own analysis of what it means for the claim.

Like every model in this course, it is a simplification you can hold in one hand. Real writers sometimes put the analysis first or split the parts across two sentences. All four parts still show up.

Worked example — the four parts of the running draft's quotation (Model A, Stage 5). The fragment is copied exactly from the article's abstract; the rest of the sentence is the student's draft, illustrative and attributed to no one.

"As Beland and Murphy argue, 'the unstructured presence of phones has detrimental effects on certain students' (61), and the students they identify are the ones a college most needs to reach."

Signal phrase: "As Beland and Murphy argue," names the authors before their words arrive.
Quotation: "the unstructured presence of phones has detrimental effects on certain students", the 11-word fragment, copied exactly from the article's abstract.
Citation: (61), the page alone, because the authors are named in the signal phrase. The abstract sits on page 61. Without the signal phrase, the citation would read (Beland and Murphy 61).
Analysis: "and the students they identify are the ones a college most needs to reach." This clause is the writer's thinking. It ties the source to the claim about who benefits.

In words: the signal phrase introduces, the quotation brings exact evidence, the citation lets a reader find it, and the analysis makes it serve the claim.

The move works the same way for a paraphrase. Only the second part changes.

Worked example — the four parts with a paraphrase. The sentences are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one. They paraphrase the same abstract.

"Beland and Murphy suggest that limiting phones could be an inexpensive way to narrow the gaps between students (61). For a college weighing a new rule, a small cost and a benefit aimed at the students who need it most are the two facts that matter."

Signal phrase: "Beland and Murphy suggest".
Paraphrase: "limiting phones could be an inexpensive way to narrow the gaps between students". It keeps the authors' idea in the writer's words and sentence shape, so it takes no quotation marks.
Citation: (61), because the idea comes from the abstract on page 61.
Analysis: the second sentence, which says why that idea matters for the draft's claim.

In words: whether you quote or paraphrase, the same four parts carry the source into your argument.

Misconception check — the citation counts as the analysis. Students often think a quotation with a citation after it is fully integrated. It is tempting because the citation is the visible sign of doing it right. But the citation only tells a reader where the words came from. It does not tell them why the words matter. The cure is to check every borrowed sentence for the fourth part: a clause or sentence of your own that connects the source to your claim.

4. Spot the dropped quotation

Picture a group text where someone pastes a screenshot of a news headline and writes nothing else. Is it a joke? A warning? Agreement? Disagreement? Everyone in the chat has to guess. A quotation dropped into a paragraph puts a reader in the same spot.

A dropped quotation is a quotation set down in a paragraph with no lead-in and no analysis, sometimes called a quote bomb. The reader meets someone else's words without knowing who said them or why they matter to the claim.

Worked example — rebuilding a dropped quotation. The dropped version is illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

The dropped version: "Phones should be put away in lecture. 'the unstructured presence of phones has detrimental effects on certain students' (Beland and Murphy 61). The policy should change."
Count the parts. It has the quotation and the citation: 2 of the 4 parts. So 4 − 2 = 2 parts are missing: the signal phrase and the writer's analysis.
Notice the clue. The quotation starts with a lowercase "the". That small letter shows it was cut from a longer sentence and set down with nothing around it.
The rebuild: add the signal phrase before it and the analysis after it, and you have the running draft's Stage 5 sentence: "As Beland and Murphy argue, 'the unstructured presence of phones has detrimental effects on certain students' (61), and the students they identify are the ones a college most needs to reach."

In words: a dropped quotation has the source's words and nothing of yours. The rebuild adds the two parts that only you can supply.

Misconception check — the dropped quotation counted as "using a source." Students often think that any quotation with a citation shows they used the source. It is tempting because the quotation is accurate and the citation is correct. But a reader cannot tell what the quotation proves, so the source does no work for the claim. The cure is to read each quotation and ask, "Who said this, and why is it here?" If the paragraph does not answer both questions, the quotation was dropped.

5. Cite your paraphrases

Suppose a classmate explains a shortcut for a stats homework problem, and you use it on the next assignment in your own words. You would still say where you learned it if anyone asked. Rewording the shortcut did not make it yours.

Week 10 set the rule: a paraphrase and a summary need credit as much as a quotation does, because the idea is still someone else's. In a research-based argument, this is the rule writers break most often, and they usually break it by accident. A paraphrase still carries someone else's idea, so it still gets a signal phrase or a citation.

Worked example — the running draft's uncited paraphrase. The paragraph is the running draft's Stage 4, illustrative and attributed to no one.

In its earlier form, the paragraph's second sentence read: "Research on schools that banned phones found the gain in exam results concentrated among the lowest-achieving students, while higher-achieving students were largely unaffected." That sentence paraphrases Beland and Murphy's finding, but it names no source.
Ask the question: whose idea is this? It is one study's finding, not common knowledge.
This week's change: the sentence now ends with (Beland and Murphy 61). The abstract that states the finding sits on page 61.
The other option: a signal phrase would also work, such as "Beland and Murphy's research on schools that banned phones found …", followed by (61).

In words: the paragraph's wording did not change, but its honesty did. A reader can now see that the finding came from Beland and Murphy and can check it.

Misconception check — a paraphrase left uncited. Students often think that once a sentence is in their own words, it no longer needs a citation. It is tempting because the sentence really is theirs, word by word. But a citation credits the idea, not only the wording. The cure is to mark every sentence in your draft that carries a source's idea, quoted or not, and give each one a signal phrase or a citation.

In practice (your tools). In your word processor, use Insert › Comment (or the Review tab's New Comment button) to tag every sentence that uses a source. Type "S" for signal phrase, "Q" or "P" for quotation or paraphrase, "C" for citation, and "A" for analysis in the comment. A borrowed sentence whose comment lacks "C" needs a citation; one that lacks "A" needs your analysis.

6. Answer the other side with sources

Imagine you are asking a landlord to let you paint your bedroom. You know her first worry will be the cost of repainting when you move out. If you raise that worry yourself and offer to repaint before you leave, she trusts you more. If you pretend the worry does not exist, she raises it, and you look like you were hiding it.

Week 7 taught the move: a counterargument states the other side's view, steel-manning states it at its strongest, and a rebuttal answers it. In a research-based argument, the other side gets evidence too. You state the strongest objection to your claim using the other side's best evidence, then rebut it with yours.

Worked example — the running draft's counterargument paragraph. The paragraph is illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one. It draws on the counterargument the running draft has carried since Week 7.

"The strongest case against a phone-free default deserves a fair hearing. Some students need a phone for a documented accommodation, some must be reachable in an emergency, and many adult students manage work and family by phone. The same study can be read on their side: Beland and Murphy found that higher-achieving students were largely unaffected (61), so for many students the rule would change little. That finding, though, cuts both ways. If most students lose almost nothing, the rule's cost is small, and an opt-in accommodation and a stated emergency exception keep the students with real needs inside the policy. A phone-free default is not a blanket ban; it is a low-cost rule with its exceptions written in."

The steel man: the objection names three real groups, students with documented accommodations, students who must be reachable in an emergency, and adult students who manage work and family by phone.
The other side's best evidence: Beland and Murphy's finding that higher-achieving students were largely unaffected. Here the strongest counter-evidence sits inside the writer's own source.
The rebuttal: the same finding shows the rule's cost is small, and the stated exception answers each group's need.
The last word: the paragraph ends on the writer's sentence, not on the objection.

In words: the writer gave the other side its best evidence and then answered it with the same evidence and a stated exception. That honesty builds trust a straw man would lose.

Here is an honest caveat. In a longer research project, you would also search for a source that argues the other side directly, then read it laterally the way Week 9 taught. Use only a source you have found and opened yourself, never one a chatbot names for you.

Misconception check — counterargument versus concession. Students often think that admitting the other side has a point means giving up the argument. It is tempting because a concession sounds like losing ground. But a counterargument is the objection stated fairly; a concession is the part of it you grant; the rebuttal is your answer. Here the writer concedes that many students would see little change, then shows why that small change is a reason for the rule, not against it.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) think of a decision you argued for at work, at home, or in a club, and say what the strongest objection was and how you answered it.
(b) pick a claim you do not hold on one of this course's campus topics, such as a four-day class schedule, and say what evidence its best defender would bring.

7. Keep the balance and take the last word

Think about a podcast where the host plays a long clip from a guest and then moves on to the next clip without a word. After a few clips, you wonder why you are listening to the host at all. A good host plays a short clip and then talks about it.

The balance of voices is the proportion between the writer's own sentences and borrowed material on a page. In a research-based argument the writer's voice is the majority, quoted words are a small fraction, and each paragraph ends with the writer's sentence.

Worked example — measuring the balance in the synthesis paragraph. The paragraph is the illustrative one from section 2.

Count the paragraph's words, not counting the citation: 118.
Count the quoted words: the fragment from Beland and Murphy's abstract has 11.
Subtract: 118 − 11 = 107 words sit outside quotation marks.
Compare: 11 quoted words out of 118 is fewer than 1 word in 10, because 1 in 10 would be about 12 of 118.
Check both ends: the paragraph opens with the writer's claim and closes with the writer's sentence about the gap the essay must fill.

In words: the quoted fragment is short and earns its place, and the writer's sentences surround it on both sides.

Notice one limitation of this count. Words outside quotation marks are not all the writer's own ideas. The sentences about Amy and the Department for Education are paraphrases, written in the writer's words but carrying the sources' ideas. The count measures quoting, not thinking. Thinking shows up in the sentences that connect the sources and say what they mean.

Misconception check — ending a paragraph on a quotation. Students often end a paragraph with a powerful quotation, so the source gets the last word. It is tempting because the quotation sounds like a strong finish. But the reader is left to decide what it proves. The cure is to add one sentence after the quotation that says what it means for your claim. The writer gets the last word.

8. Match the list to the page

Think of a coat check. Each coat on the rack has a numbered tag, and each tag in a customer's hand matches a coat. A coat with no tag cannot be returned, and a tag with no coat sends someone home cold. The works-cited list and your in-text citations work the same way.

The two-way match is the final check on a documented essay: every in-text citation points to an entry in the works-cited list, and every entry in the list is cited somewhere in the essay. Week 11's matched-pair rule still holds: whatever word begins the in-text citation begins the entry.

Here is the running draft's works-cited list (Model A, Stage 6), the four entries of the mini-source set in alphabetical order:

Works Cited

Amy, Jeff. "A Majority of U.S. States Now Have Laws Banning or Regulating Cellphones in Schools." PBS News, 21 May 2025, www.pbs.org/newshour/education/a-majority-of-u-s-states-now-have-laws-banning-or-regulating-cellphones-in-schools.

Beland, Louis-Philippe, and Richard Murphy. "Ill Communication: Technology, Distraction & Student Performance." Labour Economics, vol. 41, 2016, pp. 61–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004.

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. 10th anniversary ed., W. W. Norton, 2020.

Department for Education. "Mobile Phones in Schools." GOV.UK, 29 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phones-in-schools.

Worked example — running the check both ways. The citations come from the paragraphs in this chapter.

The table below lists each source the draft cites and the entry its citation points to.

The running draft's in-text citations and the works-cited entries they point to
Citation in the draft	Where it appears	Entry it points to
(Beland and Murphy 61)	the revised body paragraph	Beland and Murphy
(61), with the authors in the signal phrase	the synthesis and counterargument paragraphs	Beland and Murphy
Amy, named in the sentence	the synthesis paragraph	Amy
the Department for Education, named in the sentence	the synthesis paragraph	Department for Education

Page to list: every citation in the draft finds its entry. Amy and the Department for Education are web sources with no page numbers, so naming them in the sentence is enough.
List to page: 4 entries, 3 cited in the draft, so 4 − 3 = 1 entry is unmatched. Carr is listed but never cited.
The fix: cite Carr where the draft uses his idea, with his name and the page you read, or remove the entry. No page for Carr is given here, because the page depends on the passage you actually read.

In words: the check runs in both directions because each direction catches a different mistake. A citation with no entry leaves the reader with no source; an entry with no citation lists a source the essay never used.

Misconception check — "every source I read goes on the list." Students often think the works-cited list is a record of their whole search. It is tempting because the list looks more impressive when it is longer. But MLA's list holds the works you cite, not every work you read. The cure is to run the two-way match and cut any entry the essay never cites, or cite it where you use it.

In practice (your tools). In your word processor, open Find (Ctrl+F, or Command+F on a Mac) and search for each entry's first word: Amy, Beland, Carr, Department. Every search should land on at least one sentence in the body. Then search for an opening parenthesis, "(", and step through each citation to make sure its first word appears at the start of an entry.

9. Check the machine: the citation nobody opened

Chatbots are good at producing sentences that sound researched. Ask one to "add a source," and it will hand back a confident sentence with a citation attached. The formatting looks right. That is the danger.

The course rule for every chatbot moment holds here: the tool drafts, and the writer judges. A chatbot-supplied quotation, source, or citation is unverified until you open the source and find the words.

Worked example — testing a chatbot's citation. The exchange is described in words, as an illustration written for this course and attributed to no product.

The request: you ask a chatbot to "add a source that supports this paragraph."
The reply: a smooth sentence saying that phone bans "raise every student's grades", in quotation marks, credited to Beland and Murphy, with a page number inside the article's range.
The check: you open the article's record and search for the words. They are not there.
The second warning sign: the claim contradicts the real finding. Beland and Murphy found a gain concentrated among the lowest-achieving students, with higher-achieving students largely unaffected. "Every student" is the opposite of what they reported.
The repair: the sentence does not go in. You keep the running draft's real fragment, which you copied from the abstract yourself.

In words: a citation is a promise that the words are in the source. Only opening the source keeps that promise.

Misconception check — trusting an AI-supplied citation because the source is real. Students often trust a chatbot's citation when the author and the article are real. It is tempting because the names check out. But a real source can still carry a fake quotation, a wrong page, or a stretched finding. The cure is to check the words, not only the names. If you cannot find the words in the source, the citation is out.

Key terms

report — A piece of writing that collects and passes along what sources say without making a case of its own; in a research paper it is the shape to avoid, because the sources end up replacing the writer's claim. (first used: 1. Tell an argument from a report)
research-based argument — An argument essay whose claim belongs to the writer and whose evidence comes from credible sources that are integrated, cited, and answered; it is an argument first, and the research is its evidence. (first used: 1. Tell an argument from a report)
synthesis moves — The three relationships a writer names when putting sources in conversation: one source agrees with another, extends it by explaining why or for whom, or disagrees with it or complicates it. (first used: 2. Put your sources in conversation)
source-dumping — Piling sources into a paragraph one after another with little or none of the writer's own reasoning between them, which turns an argument back into a report. (first used: 2. Put your sources in conversation)
four-part integration move — The classroom model for bringing a source into a sentence: a signal phrase that names the source, the quotation or paraphrase, the MLA in-text citation, and the writer's own analysis of what it means for the claim. (first used: 3. Use the four-part integration move)
dropped quotation — A quotation set down in a paragraph with no lead-in and no analysis, sometimes called a quote bomb, so the reader meets someone else's words without knowing who said them or why they matter to the claim. (first used: 4. Spot the dropped quotation)
balance of voices — The proportion between the writer's own sentences and borrowed material on a page; in a research-based argument the writer's voice is the majority, quoted words are a small fraction, and each paragraph ends with the writer's sentence. (first used: 7. Keep the balance and take the last word)
two-way match — The final check on a documented essay: every in-text citation points to an entry in the works-cited list, and every entry in the list is cited somewhere in the essay. (first used: 8. Match the list to the page)

Summary

A report collects; an argument makes a case, and its sources support your claim.
Open each paragraph with your point, not with a source.
Name how sources relate: agree, extend, or disagree.
Every borrowed idea gets four parts: signal phrase, quotation or paraphrase, citation, analysis.
A dropped quotation has the source's words and none of yours.
A paraphrase still needs a citation, because the idea is still the source's.
Give the other side its best evidence, then answer it.
Keep quoted words a small fraction, and end every paragraph on your own sentence.
Check citations against the list, and the list against the citations.
A chatbot's citation is unverified until you open the source and find the words.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

Two illustrative paragraphs about a neighborhood bike-share program, attributed to no one. Paragraph A: "A city survey counted riders at six docks. A local news story described the program's launch. A cycling group's newsletter praised the new bike lanes." Paragraph B: "The bike-share program should add docks near the hospital, because night-shift workers are the riders the current map leaves out. A city survey counted riders at six docks, and none of the six is within walking distance of a hospital entrance." Which paragraph is an argument, and what is the test?
An illustrative paragraph, attributed to no one, quotes a library's patron survey: "Evening hours matter. 'most respondents visit after work' (4). The library should stay open later." Which of the four parts are present, how many are missing, and what would a repaired version add?
An illustrative paragraph about a food bank's volunteer schedule runs 160 words, not counting citations. Of those, 64 words are inside quotation marks, and the paragraph ends on a quotation. How many words sit outside quotation marks, what fraction of the paragraph is quoted, and what two changes would restore the balance?
An illustrative essay on a workplace's meeting policy has a works-cited list of 5 entries. Its in-text citations point to 4 of those entries, and one more citation names an author whose name begins no entry on the list. How many problems does the two-way match find, and what is the fix for each?

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

Paragraph B is the argument. The test is the first sentence. Paragraph A opens with a source and every sentence after it reports another source, so it states no claim of its own; it is a report. Paragraph B opens with the writer's claim about adding docks near the hospital, then uses the survey as evidence for it. This item catches the research paper written as a report.
Two parts are present: the quotation and the citation. That is 2 of 4, so 4 − 2 = 2 parts are missing: the signal phrase and the analysis. A repaired version would name the survey's source before the quotation, as in "the library's patron survey found that", and add a sentence after it, such as one explaining that later hours would reach the people the survey describes. This item catches the dropped quotation counted as using a source.
Subtract: 160 − 64 = 96 words sit outside quotation marks. The quoted share is 64 out of 160, which reduces to 2 in 5, so 40 percent of the paragraph is someone else's exact words. That is far more than a small fraction. Two changes restore the balance: paraphrase most of the quoted material and quote only the few words whose exact wording matters, and add a closing sentence of your own so the paragraph does not end on a quotation. This item catches the habit of letting sources do the talking.
The check finds 2 problems, one in each direction. List to page: 5 entries, 4 cited, so 5 − 4 = 1 entry is never cited; cite it where the essay uses it or cut it. Page to list: 1 citation points to no entry; open the source, confirm it is real and says what the essay claims, then add its entry, or cut the sentence if the source cannot be found. This item catches the habit of checking only one direction.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz — and next week, Revision & Style teaches the reverse outline, the method for re-seeing this whole draft before you polish it.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com