Act III – Entries 9-12: Choose one of the annotative responses for each of the four scenes in Act III. Write plenty to demonstrate your deep, thoughtful engagement with the text. Don’t skimp or hurry!
Annotative Responses for Literature, specifically Hamlet by Shakespeare
(Just do your best to interpret the meaning of each kind of response. You can repeat a response, just not immediately after or preceding the same response.)
Heuristic response: Restates a snappy portion of the section that makes the reader want to respond. It is best to use the author’s own words. Cite the passage with act, scene, and line numbers which prompts your response. Then respond.
Question response: Turns the main point of the story or information into an organizing question that the selection answers. Write a question that is answered holistically by the selected scene. Then respond.
Critical response: Supports, rejects, or questions the main idea, and tells why. The first sentence of this type of response should restate the author’s position. The next sentence should state your position. Additional sentences should explain how the two differ. Focus the criticism on one of the topics addressed by the writer in the specified chapter, act, or scene.
Moral-ethical response: Requires reference to values and beliefs that guide, or one believes should guide, attitudes and behavior; and hence, both reflects and influences character development and complexity of thinking. What belief system of values guides a specific character? What values guide the community or culture?
Discipline-connective response: This is a conscious search for relevant ideas, facts, and factors that may seldom appear related to a topic because schooling, as opposed to learning, tends to have subject boundaries whereas ideas do not. Make connections between this piece of literature and other ideas, experiences, and works
Reading Awareness: Identifies or comments on a problem one may have had in reading and understanding a specific piece. Think about your thoughts. Write about that in response to the scene.

feel very well should be good

pandas are endangered because of habitat destruction by humans.

as of 2014 there were around 2,000 left, since then, it supposedly has risen 17%.

they are a very endangered species.

-theoneandonly003

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.

16.) true

17.) true

18.) no information in the text

19.) false

20.) no information in the text