Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Accounting homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-accounting)
All details in attached files, needs to be based off of outline
– 2 years ago
**files (2)**
– ## Compareandcontrast.docx
– ## draftcomp2001.pdf
**## Compareandcontrast.docx**
## image7.png
## image8.png
## image1.jpeg
## image2.png
## image3.png
## image4.png
## image5.png
## image6.png
**## draftcomp2001.pdf**
I. Introduction
A. Hook: Language is one of the most powerful tools we have yet its use is often
overlooked.
B. Introduce the subjects being compared or contrasted: In “There is No Proper English,”
Kamm explains that the concept of proper English is not a real thing. In “Breaking Out
the Broken English” Chu explores the struggles of speaking broken English in a world
that degrades those kinds of voices. Both authors have their opinions on language but
approach it from different perspectives, one academic and the other personal.
C. Thesis: Both Kamm and Chu evaluate the societal judgment of broken English, Kamm
focuses on proving there are many myths about language through logic and evidence,
but Chu shares a personal journey of being heard through language.
II. Body
A. Paragraph 2 – Reason #1: Both evaluate the idea of proper English
Topic Sentence: Both authors argue that the concept of proper English is harmful
and exclusionary.
1. Kamm shows how grammar rules are random and misleading.
2. Chu expresses how his broken English made hisfeel ashamed and less than.
3. Both suggest that language norms are used to limit our way of speech.
4. Each text leaves you wondering who gets to define the correct way of language.
Conclusion Sentence: Despite their different styles, both authors urge society to rethink
rigid language standards.
B. Paragraph 3 – Reason #2: Differences in approach
Topic Sentence: Kamm and Chu differ significantly in their approach, with one
taking an academic side and the other a personal style.
1. Kamm uses examples from linguistics and writing guides to make his claims.
2. His approach is logical, persuasive, and meant to educate the reader.
3. Chu shares sensitive moments from his life and experiences.
4. His approach is emotional and expressive of his feelings helping readers feel his
struggle.
Conclusion Sentence: Their differences in approach show their unique purposes, one to
inform and other to connect with others.
C. Paragraph 4 – Reason #3: Use of identity and expressing yourself
Topic Sentence: Chu and Kamm both talk about how language is
connected to identity, but Chu focuses more on expressing yourself.
1. Chu talks about how his language was tied to his Asian identity.
2. He shares how reclaiming his way of speaking was an act of dedication.
3. Kamm highlights identity more broadly discussing how class and education shape
linguistics.
4. Kamm focuses on social outlook while Chu focuses on believing in himself
Conclusion Sentence: although both highlight language and identity, Chu’s story
personalizes the emotional impact of language discrimination.
D. Paragraph 5 – Reason #4: Impact
Topic Sentence: The impact of each text changes based on their
approach and message.
1. Kamm empowers readers by influencing them to think about rules they may have never
thought to use.
2. His facts and examples encourage readers to reflect on biases they may have made.
3. Chu encourages through being vulnerable, encouraging others to embrace their voices.
4. history repeats with those who have been affected by language discrimination.
Conclusion Sentence: Each leaves the reader with a different kind of empowerment, one
through self reflection and the other through emotional encouragement.
III. Conclusion
Restate thesis: Kamm and Chu both challenge the use of proper English but they do so in
structured and supportive ways.
Brief summary of similarities or differences: They both agree on the need to break down harmful
language norms but Kamm uses analysis while Chu uses storytelling. Their approaches, styles,
and personal experiences differ but both aim to empower voices that have been suppressed.
Closing thoughts: Together these texts show us that English is not just a language, it’s a
reflection of whose voices are valued compared to others. These texts show we can take a step
toward a more inclusive way of communicating.
**## draftcomp2001.pdf**
I. Introduction
A. Hook: Language is one of the most powerful tools we have yet its use is often
overlooked.
B. Introduce the subjects being compared or contrasted: In “There is No Proper English,”
Kamm explains that the concept of proper English is not a real thing. In “Breaking Out
the Broken English” Chu explores the struggles of speaking broken English in a world
that degrades those kinds of voices. Both authors have their opinions on language but
approach it from different perspectives, one academic and the other personal.
C. Thesis: Both Kamm and Chu evaluate the societal judgment of broken English, Kamm
focuses on proving there are many myths about language through logic and evidence,
but Chu shares a personal journey of being heard through language.
II. Body
A. Paragraph 2 – Reason #1: Both evaluate the idea of proper English
Topic Sentence: Both authors argue that the concept of proper English is harmful
and exclusionary.
1. Kamm shows how grammar rules are random and misleading.
2. Chu expresses how his broken English made hisfeel ashamed and less than.
3. Both suggest that language norms are used to limit our way of speech.
4. Each text leaves you wondering who gets to define the correct way of language.
Conclusion Sentence: Despite their different styles, both authors urge society to rethink
rigid language standards.
B. Paragraph 3 – Reason #2: Differences in approach
Topic Sentence: Kamm and Chu differ significantly in their approach, with one
taking an academic side and the other a personal style.
1. Kamm uses examples from linguistics and writing guides to make his claims.
2. His approach is logical, persuasive, and meant to educate the reader.
3. Chu shares sensitive moments from his life and experiences.
4. His approach is emotional and expressive of his feelings helping readers feel his
struggle.
Conclusion Sentence: Their differences in approach show their unique purposes, one to
inform and other to connect with others.
C. Paragraph 4 – Reason #3: Use of identity and expressing yourself
Topic Sentence: Chu and Kamm both talk about how language is
connected to identity, but Chu focuses more on expressing yourself.
1. Chu talks about how his language was tied to his Asian identity.
2. He shares how reclaiming his way of speaking was an act of dedication.
3. Kamm highlights identity more broadly discussing how class and education shape
linguistics.
4. Kamm focuses on social outlook while Chu focuses on believing in himself
Conclusion Sentence: although both highlight language and identity, Chu’s story
personalizes the emotional impact of language discrimination.
D. Paragraph 5 – Reason #4: Impact
Topic Sentence: The impact of each text changes based on their
approach and message.
1. Kamm empowers readers by influencing them to think about rules they may have never
thought to use.
2. His facts and examples encourage readers to reflect on biases they may have made.
3. Chu encourages through being vulnerable, encouraging others to embrace their voices.
4. history repeats with those who have been affected by language discrimination.
Conclusion Sentence: Each leaves the reader with a different kind of empowerment, one
through self reflection and the other through emotional encouragement.
III. Conclusion
Restate thesis: Kamm and Chu both challenge the use of proper English but they do so in
structured and supportive ways.
Brief summary of similarities or differences: They both agree on the need to break down harmful
language norms but Kamm uses analysis while Chu uses storytelling. Their approaches, styles,
and personal experiences differ but both aim to empower voices that have been suppressed.
Closing thoughts: Together these texts show us that English is not just a language, it’s a
reflection of whose voices are valued compared to others. These texts show we can take a step
toward a more inclusive way of communicating.
**## Compareandcontrast.docx**
## image7.png
## image8.png
## image1.jpeg
## image2.png
## image3.png
## image4.png
## image5.png
## image6.png
**## draftcomp2001.pdf**
I. Introduction
A. Hook: Language is one of the most powerful tools we have yet its use is often
overlooked.
B. Introduce the subjects being compared or contrasted: In “There is No Proper English,”
Kamm explains that the concept of proper English is not a real thing. In “Breaking Out
the Broken English” Chu explores the struggles of speaking broken English in a world
that degrades those kinds of voices. Both authors have their opinions on language but
approach it from different perspectives, one academic and the other personal.
C. Thesis: Both Kamm and Chu evaluate the societal judgment of broken English, Kamm
focuses on proving there are many myths about language through logic and evidence,
but Chu shares a personal journey of being heard through language.
II. Body
A. Paragraph 2 – Reason #1: Both evaluate the idea of proper English
Topic Sentence: Both authors argue that the concept of proper English is harmful
and exclusionary.
1. Kamm shows how grammar rules are random and misleading.
2. Chu expresses how his broken English made hisfeel ashamed and less than.
3. Both suggest that language norms are used to limit our way of speech.
4. Each text leaves you wondering who gets to define the correct way of language.
Conclusion Sentence: Despite their different styles, both authors urge society to rethink
rigid language standards.
B. Paragraph 3 – Reason #2: Differences in approach
Topic Sentence: Kamm and Chu differ significantly in their approach, with one
taking an academic side and the other a personal style.
1. Kamm uses examples from linguistics and writing guides to make his claims.
2. His approach is logical, persuasive, and meant to educate the reader.
3. Chu shares sensitive moments from his life and experiences.
4. His approach is emotional and expressive of his feelings helping readers feel his
struggle.
Conclusion Sentence: Their differences in approach show their unique purposes, one to
inform and other to connect with others.
C. Paragraph 4 – Reason #3: Use of identity and expressing yourself
Topic Sentence: Chu and Kamm both talk about how language is
connected to identity, but Chu focuses more on expressing yourself.
1. Chu talks about how his language was tied to his Asian identity.
2. He shares how reclaiming his way of speaking was an act of dedication.
3. Kamm highlights identity more broadly discussing how class and education shape
linguistics.
4. Kamm focuses on social outlook while Chu focuses on believing in himself
Conclusion Sentence: although both highlight language and identity, Chu’s story
personalizes the emotional impact of language discrimination.
D. Paragraph 5 – Reason #4: Impact
Topic Sentence: The impact of each text changes based on their
approach and message.
1. Kamm empowers readers by influencing them to think about rules they may have never
thought to use.
2. His facts and examples encourage readers to reflect on biases they may have made.
3. Chu encourages through being vulnerable, encouraging others to embrace their voices.
4. history repeats with those who have been affected by language discrimination.
Conclusion Sentence: Each leaves the reader with a different kind of empowerment, one
through self reflection and the other through emotional encouragement.
III. Conclusion
Restate thesis: Kamm and Chu both challenge the use of proper English but they do so in
structured and supportive ways.
Brief summary of similarities or differences: They both agree on the need to break down harmful
language norms but Kamm uses analysis while Chu uses storytelling. Their approaches, styles,
and personal experiences differ but both aim to empower voices that have been suppressed.
Closing thoughts: Together these texts show us that English is not just a language, it’s a
reflection of whose voices are valued compared to others. These texts show we can take a step
toward a more inclusive way of communicating.
**## Compareandcontrast.docx**
## image7.png
## image8.png
## image1.jpeg
## image2.png
## image3.png
## image4.png
## image5.png
## image6.png
**## draftcomp2001.pdf**
I. Introduction
A. Hook: Language is one of the most powerful tools we have yet its use is often
overlooked.
B. Introduce the subjects being compared or contrasted: In “There is No Proper English,”
Kamm explains that the concept of proper English is not a real thing. In “Breaking Out
the Broken English” Chu explores the struggles of speaking broken English in a world
that degrades those kinds of voices. Both authors have their opinions on language but
approach it from different perspectives, one academic and the other personal.
C. Thesis: Both Kamm and Chu evaluate the societal judgment of broken English, Kamm
focuses on proving there are many myths about language through logic and evidence,
but Chu shares a personal journey of being heard through language.
II. Body
A. Paragraph 2 – Reason #1: Both evaluate the idea of proper English
Topic Sentence: Both authors argue that the concept of proper English is harmful
and exclusionary.
1. Kamm shows how grammar rules are random and misleading.
2. Chu expresses how his broken English made hisfeel ashamed and less than.
3. Both suggest that language norms are used to limit our way of speech.
4. Each text leaves you wondering who gets to define the correct way of language.
Conclusion Sentence: Despite their different styles, both authors urge society to rethink
rigid language standards.
B. Paragraph 3 – Reason #2: Differences in approach
Topic Sentence: Kamm and Chu differ significantly in their approach, with one
taking an academic side and the other a personal style.
1. Kamm uses examples from linguistics and writing guides to make his claims.
2. His approach is logical, persuasive, and meant to educate the reader.
3. Chu shares sensitive moments from his life and experiences.
4. His approach is emotional and expressive of his feelings helping readers feel his
struggle.
Conclusion Sentence: Their differences in approach show their unique purposes, one to
inform and other to connect with others.
C. Paragraph 4 – Reason #3: Use of identity and expressing yourself
Topic Sentence: Chu and Kamm both talk about how language is
connected to identity, but Chu focuses more on expressing yourself.
1. Chu talks about how his language was tied to his Asian identity.
2. He shares how reclaiming his way of speaking was an act of dedication.
3. Kamm highlights identity more broadly discussing how class and education shape
linguistics.
4. Kamm focuses on social outlook while Chu focuses on believing in himself
Conclusion Sentence: although both highlight language and identity, Chu’s story
personalizes the emotional impact of language discrimination.
D. Paragraph 5 – Reason #4: Impact
Topic Sentence: The impact of each text changes based on their
approach and message.
1. Kamm empowers readers by influencing them to think about rules they may have never
thought to use.
2. His facts and examples encourage readers to reflect on biases they may have made.
3. Chu encourages through being vulnerable, encouraging others to embrace their voices.
4. history repeats with those who have been affected by language discrimination.
Conclusion Sentence: Each leaves the reader with a different kind of empowerment, one
through self reflection and the other through emotional encouragement.
III. Conclusion
Restate thesis: Kamm and Chu both challenge the use of proper English but they do so in
structured and supportive ways.
Brief summary of similarities or differences: They both agree on the need to break down harmful
language norms but Kamm uses analysis while Chu uses storytelling. Their approaches, styles,
and personal experiences differ but both aim to empower voices that have been suppressed.
Closing thoughts: Together these texts show us that English is not just a language, it’s a
reflection of whose voices are valued compared to others. These texts show we can take a step
toward a more inclusive way of communicating.