Summary Response
Summary Response
Summary Response
RESPONSE
A response is a critique or evaluation of the author's essay.
Unlike the summary, it is composed of YOUR opinions in
relation to the article being summarized. It examines ideas
that you agree or disagree with and identifies the essay's
strengths and weaknesses in reasoning and logic, in quality
of supporting examples, and in organization and style.
• SUMMARY
In his informative essay, “The Year that Changed Everything,” Lance Morrow claims that 1948
should be considered a pivotal one in American history. The author says this year was one in
which future Presidents Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson went through “formative ordeals.”
He explains how each man’s life was changed through decisions to reveal or conceal secrets.
Nixon rose in politics through attempting to uncover communist activity in the Alger Hiss case.
Kennedy prepared for the presidency by concealing his Addison’s disease and allowing his
family to cover up family sexual indiscretions.
Johnson hid the questionable balloting in his congressional election. Morrow also mentions
other provoking secrets of this era such as Kinsey’s sex report, DDT, and Orwell’s novel, 1984.
He alludes to changes in world events by noting Gandhi’s assassination, The Marshall Plan
and the birth of the State of Israel. Suggestively, Morrow notes that in this year of secrets and
the birth of television Americans questioned again whether they were moral or immoral people.
(Lumen Learning)
• RESPONSE
I think that this essay is very thought-provoking even though I
do not think Morrow clearly connects his examples to his
thesis, and I think his explanations are weak throughout. I also
think that his choice of 1948 is rather arbitrary for some of the
examples. For instance, Kennedy found out about his illness in
1947 and concealed it until his death, so why focus on 1948?
Nevertheless, I do think that Morrow convinces me that 1948
was a “seedbed” for a chance in the way in which Americans
viewed themselves, politicians and the political process.
(Lumen Learning)
• SUMMARY
In “Children Need to Play, Not Compete,” Jessica Statsky debates whether
competitive sports are necessary for young children before their adolescent
years. Statsky believes that competitiveness should belong to adult sports only
because children psychologically are not ready to stop having fun on the field
or in the gym in favour of a more serious attitude. Among other reasons
against an adult-like approach to sports is unreadiness of children bodies to
endure heavy physical stresses, which can lead to injuries. Because of that
unpreparedness, some children may be written off as unsuitable for certain
kinds of sports while getting older the same children could show great results.
Statsky offers to divide sports activities for children under 12-14 years and
those over that age. The latter could practice being competitive while the
former could enjoy just playing and spending time with friends. The reason for
that is that apart from the ability to compete, children need to develop an
ability to cooperate, as well.
(Lumen Learning)
• RESPONSE
I find Jessica Statsky’s position reasonable. Not all people are born with a
competitive streak. The least we can do for our children is to postpone
their emergence to the reality of the dog-eat-dog world. Therefore, it would
be fair to create such conditions under which everyone’s needs could be
tended. Taking into consideration the obvious physical and psychological
harm mentioned in the article, I agree that it would be wise for sports
officials to create special programs for younger children. However, I am
not sure whether it is necessary to develop competitiveness at all. I
suppose there are children who are ambitious; hence, actually, they do not
need to be encouraged to compete – they are always ready for that.
(Lumen Learning)
Scoring Components
Summary Response
1. Paraphrasing 1.Agree/disagree: Do you agree or disagree
2. Source acknowledgement with the author’s ideas?
3. Main information (Topic, 2.Connect author's ideas to you personally:
Main idea, Supporting Do the author’s ideas connect to you
details personally?
3.Apply author's ideas to your own life -- do
they fit in, or do they diverge, or both? Or
can you apply the author’s ideas to your
own life?