Summary and analysis of milgram

Length: 3-4 pages typed, double-spaced, one inch margins.

Citations: MLA in-text citation method (refer to Quotation Handout)

Outside Sources: No outside sources

(Except: you may use Parker’s article, “Obedience,” to supplement and strengthen your points.)

 

this paper a summary and analysis of Stanley Milgram’s article, “The Perils of Obedience.” The paper involves two central activities: (1) your presentation of an accurate and fair summary of the original essay and (2) the construction of our own position and the elaboration of your reasons for holding it.

 

Format:

Begin your essay with a summary of Milgram’s article. this means that your opening sentence must include Milgram’s full name, the title of his article, and Milgram’s thesis (you do not need to indicate where the article was first published, since our textbook does not tell us).

 

After the summary, write your introduction to your analysis of the article. Your introduction should be its own paragraph and should transition smoothly from the summary that precedes it. In your introduction, introduce the points that you plan to cover, and end the paragraph with your thesis statement about Milgram.

 

In the body paragraphs that follow the introduction, make sure that you quote at least once per paragraph. Quotes must be correctly formatted, and aim to follow up each quote with a sentence or two of explanation or analysis of that particular quote. Do not end paragraphs with quotes, and make sure you create smooth transitions between each of your paragraphs.

 

Additional Points:

 

Analysis does not merely mean a statement of agreement or disagreement with—or like or dislike of—a particular author. It need not be a global assessment of the original essay; in most cases, it would be best to focus on one important element of the original essay. In your analysis, you may wish to expand on some especially interesting element of the author’s argument, provide an important qualification, point out a blindness, or suggest a different interpretation. It is not merely a “Cross-Fire” engagement with the reading where you decide to totally agree or disagree with positions that are constructed of many individual  arguments (some that may make sense to you, some that may not).  You are welcome, and encouraged, to build on the insights of Parker to develop your critique of Milgram’s interpretation of his data. It will not be sufficient, however, merely to parrot or “paste in” these other viewpoints – use them as a means to expand and develop your own claims.

 

 

milgram’s artical and the outside resoure are in the attachment 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>