Roberts’s piece echoed many ideas I use when writing. When given freedom to use any topic I prefer to abuse this freedom. I never worry about if the teacher would agree with my statement. I prefer to have them disagree in the grandest factor. No one was recognized for tip toeing around to avoid stepping on people’s toes. I don’t want to be the small homely paper. I want my paper to be a 4.6 ton origami elephant within the overcrowded class room crushing everyone’s toes.
My research question comes from my first method of finding a subject; take a small observation in to a full blow problem and exaggerate it till Rush Limbaugh would say you went too far.
How do umbrellas cause more harm than good?
This idea came during class when I failed to come up with a normal topic for our counterargument exercise. As Robert suggests I take the less usual side of an argument although I may invent the argument of umbrellas or enduring the rain. Most importantly to make this work I will need the abstract. I will have very little concrete evidence for my side of this argument. My main concern isn’t if my reasons can be reinforced by facts, rather if I can find reasons. I believe any reason can have facts to support it because in this world there are many sides to every argument and somewhere someone slipped up and said something that can help my case. It may not be directly related but if I claim: “by protecting yourself from rain you avoid the chance of getting sick,” then relate it to; “whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” I am quite confident that someone somewhere agreed with each one of those points. For safe measure I will most likely prepare another reassure question in case this doesn’t work.