Sunday, October 21, 2012
October 21st Cloze reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/kristof-cuddle-your-kid.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
The topic of this article is about the biological changes that occure when a child is nurtured by their parents as oppused to when they are not.
One of the focal points of this piece is that they experimented on rats first. "Meaney’s team dissected adult rats and found that licking led to differences in brain anatomy, so that rats that had been licked more were better able to control stress responses." The fact that they talked about the rats first and the humans second is a way of showing how civilized and evolved we are. And also that we remmeber the "important" part better.
The imagery in this piece is used to evoke emotions within us and connects the humans and the rats. "So, could the human version of licking and grooming — hugging and kissing babies, and reading to them — fortify our offspring and even our society as well?" When you think about a rat licking her babies, as a human would bathe their child and brush their hair, you get a feeling of happniness and contentment. This causes us to not view rats as nasty creatures not in any way similar to humans, but in a way that makes us all seem closer and the study more plausible.
The title itself is a great example of diction. "Cuddle Your Kid!" Sounds whimsical and compelling, so it draws you in. Its actually a rather upbeat piece, and that is a wonderful way to read. The fact that it also talks about the nature of our country is more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked what you said and how you said it, however it was a little difficult to follow because of your structure. There aren't any paragraphs and there is no introduction to let me know what I am about to read. I found myself getting a little lost in the text and had to find myself a few times in order to understand.
ReplyDeleteI like your ideas, especially what you said about the title being compelling. It's cute and makes you want to read the article. I agree with Alexis in that this could have a stronger structure. I think you touch on a lot of good stuff, and I'd love to see you elaborate even more. There are a lot of quote bombs that you could easily embed in a sentence and support with citations, so that would be one thing I'd fix! Also, maybe spell check before you post it? I got a little distracted by some misspellings. Nice job, though! Well thought out!
ReplyDeleteI agree that this could have had a stronger structure, but I do like the way that you draw conclusions from the article that I probably would not have gotten.
ReplyDeleteAnna, I don't see you using the comments of your peer reviewers to strengthen your work from month to month here. After Close Reading #1, peer reviewers commented that you needed paragraphs, clearer structure, specifically lableled techniques, and explicitly developed warrants. If anything, this month's entry has even less of those things than last month's.
ReplyDelete