Read the aftercited essays from CEL Ch. 8, Making Arguments, in provision for this discussion:
"The Dog Delusion" (Pedersen), CEL Ch. 8, p. 225-229.
"Cruelty, Civility, and Other Weighty Matters" (Paulin), p. 230-239
"Hive Talkin': The Buzz encircling Town encircling Bees" (Scollon), p. 240-244.
After you bear unravel all three essays, unravel the aftercited questions and meditate encircling how you insufficiency to respond:
Of the three essays, which essay spirited you the most? Why? For example, was the subject-matter closer to your own profits than the other essays? Did the transcriber conduct to entice you in opposing your failure of primal profit?
In Ch. 6, the CEL suggests that all transcribers transcribe delay "broad" and "specific" ends in end (170). For the essay that you rest the most profiting, how do you presume the transcriber open a kindred to the "wide end" of their subject-matter (too register what that wide end is)? Is it manifest that the transcriber already had a animation for the subject-matter through single experiences or relationships?
What do you meditate the transcriber's "specific end" is in despatches? What do they longing to complete, and is this longing symmetrical straightly? How does the transcriber's ardor and animation for the subject-matter parade in their despatches?