Example1: According to Graff and Birkenstein, a naysayer is someone who will criticize or object your ideas or work (p. 78). A naysayer will also allege that a writer will misrepresent someone’s work (p. 81). You can label naysayers, as ‘liberals, Christian fundamentalists etc.,’ allowing a writer to be more accurate and effective to their writing (p. 83). Graff and Birkenstein urge writers to let their readers know ‘what others might say against you.’ This will enhance the writer’s credibility, instead of undermining it’ (p. 79). They also argue that a writer should want to have a dialogue or debate with others (p. 79). If you don’t have these debates or discussions, then others may consider you as closed minded. A writer can gain the trust of readers and increase their credibility by ‘making the best case they can for their critics’ (p. 86). In the book, They Say/I Say, you can find templates to entertain objections (p. 82). Graff and Birkenstein also explain that you should write several sentences or paragraphs when addressing the objections in your writing. It is also suggested that you take them seriously and ‘read your summary of opposing views with an outsider’s eye’ (p. 86). I will probably include people like David Clarke, several GOP representatives and conservative talk radio hosts as naysayers.
Example2: A naysayer is someone that would counterargue your claim and skeptics of your claim. A naysayer in text is writing out the counterarguments. Naysayers increase credibility because it shows that the writer is knows the discussion at hand well enough to anticipate any holes that people might find in their argument. Furthermore, it shows that the writer is engaging in a conversation rather than writing in a bubble where they do not even acknowledge criticism. By planting naysayers in your writing, you are “identifying problems with your argument before others can point them out for you,” which then strengthens your own claims by being prepared to counterargue your critics ( 79). Adding naysayers is also a way of showing respect to your readers as you are identifying their thoughts and doubts about your claim and explaining your perspective on them. Without even addressing the counterarguments, no one will be interested in reading a paper that argues for something but doe not consider the bigger picture. For my bibliography, my naysayers would include people who believe capitalism promotes peace: people who are pro-capitalist, businessmen, and people who believe in the capitalist peace theory which states that capitalism pacifies countries internally and externally.
Example3: According to Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, say that a naysayer is someone who will make a rebuttal on a writers claim as well on their ideas or any kind of statement they are making like the example giving in(p.79). A naysayer will also say that the writers work is misinterpreted, and will object on anything the writer is talking about, and criticize their work but they will also be involved in their topic a naysayer could be actual naysayers not just random people like the example giving in (p.81). A naysayer could increase the credibility of a writer by objecting through their statements, and providing important facts to the writers claims that they might have missed they tend to provide important information to the writer for the most part . They also say that the writer should take their objections seriously, and answer them persuasively they have to be convincing to the reader the writer also needs to read their summaries of opposing sides, and have counterarguments for them like the example giving in (p.86). I will most likely use the U.S. citizens who do not find politics interesting and do not vote as my naysayers as they could proved their points on why they do not.
Reply Reply to Comment
Example 4: A naysayer, according to Graff and Birkenstein, is a critic of your argument. It is someone who thinks otherwise in regard to the point the writer is making. “Planting” one of these devices in one’s writing accumulates the ethos of the writer because the author is admitting there is more than one side of the discussion, and they are “opening himself or herself up for debate” (79). If one were to say that 2+2=4, one would be hard pressed to find someone to argue that 2+2 does not, in fact equal 4, and if you did, most of the criticism would be hard pressed to include logic. Thus, 2+2=4 is not the type of information one would have to write about. In addition, after the writer introduces the criticisms of their point, and find interesting and valid ways, it gives your argument an upperhand, as if there was a debate that you had won, meaning the other side has lost credibility as the position could not stand in comparison (78). Lastly, including a different opinion in your works shows the audience and readers that there is, indeed, another side to the story and that there is reasoning for the discussion to be had (78). If no one else found the topic important enough to form different opinions on, there may be an issue (a lack of specificity or a misunderstanding of information) with the topic at hand.
At the moment, my sources primarily include those who agree with my point of view, as the reason I have come to take such a position is because of my readings. I do know, however, that my initial sources included naysayers of their own in the formation of their arguments. Therefore, I have authors and works of my own possible naysayers, along with those author’s sources.
According to Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein in They Say/I Say, Chapter 5, what is a naysayer? Why do Graff and Birkenstein argue, “[N]o single device more quickly improves a piece of writing than planting a naysayer in the text”? In other words, how do naysayers increase a text’s credibility or ethos? What naysayers sources (counterarguments) have you included in your Annotated Bibliography?
The Correct Answer and Explanation is :
In Chapter 5 of They Say/I Say, Graff and Birkenstein define a naysayer as a person or group who raises objections or counterarguments against the writer’s claims or ideas. A naysayer challenges the writer’s perspective, often by offering criticisms or pointing out potential weaknesses in the argument. This can include suggesting that the writer has misrepresented someone’s work or overlooked important aspects of the issue at hand.
Graff and Birkenstein argue that “[N]o single device more quickly improves a piece of writing than planting a naysayer in the text” because it strengthens the writer’s credibility and makes the argument more persuasive. By acknowledging and addressing counterarguments, the writer demonstrates that they are aware of opposing views and are engaging in a thoughtful, well-rounded discussion. This shows that the writer is not simply reinforcing their own opinions in a vacuum, but rather is responding to legitimate concerns from other perspectives.
The presence of naysayers increases a text’s ethos (credibility) because it indicates that the writer is not closed off to other viewpoints. Rather than presenting an argument in isolation, the writer is willing to confront and engage with objections. This shows that the writer has thoroughly considered the issue, has a deep understanding of the topic, and is confident enough in their argument to address criticisms directly. By addressing these objections persuasively and respectfully, the writer can further build trust with the reader.
In my annotated bibliography, my naysayers include individuals and groups who challenge the points I make in my research. For instance, if I am writing about the environmental impacts of certain industries, my naysayers may include proponents of those industries or economists who argue that the negative effects of their operations are overstated. By presenting and responding to these counterarguments, I am strengthening my own argument, making it more nuanced and convincing to my readers.