Reading response to Survival and Death in New Orleans: An Empirical Look at the Human Impact of Katrina
Clearly identify your selected reading in the first paragraph.
Use Chicago citation style.
1. Use standard formatting – 12-point font, one-inch margins, single spacing.
2. Limit your response to two pages (single spaced) or less.
3. You must include the following four paragraphs.
The first paragraph must summarize the reading’s argument. What was the author’s main
point? Did it contain essential subpoints? Which question was the author trying to answer?
In which debate was the author intervening? Does the author introduce or utilize a
sociological concept or theory?
The second paragraph must summarize the data the reading’s argument is based on and the
methodology through which such data was collected and analyzed. Upon what data did the
author base his or her point, concept, or theory? Did the author use historical archives,
interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, or surveys to collect such data? Did the author analyze
the data qualitatively or quantitatively? Was the data presented in a particular way? Why
did the author select those particular ways of collecting, analyzing, and presenting his or
her data?
The third paragraph must summarize the reading’s strengths. Did the author employ new,
revealing data? Did the author employ old data in a new, helpful way? Is the author’s logic
particularly sound or novel? Was the author balanced in his or her analysis? Did the
author address the issue in a comprehensive way? Did the author use novel methods to
collect, analyze, or present his or her data? Was the author’s writing style particularly
effective in communicating his or her point, concept, or theory?
The fourth and final paragraph must summarize the reading’s weaknesses. Was the data
insufficient? Were the conclusions at odds with the provided data? Was there a gap in
logic? Did the author present only one side of the issue? Is the author’s point outdated or
no longer relevant? Were the author’s methods of collecting, analyzing, or presenting his
or her data limited in an important way? Are there newer, better ways of answering the
pertinent question or resolving the relevant debate? Did the author’s writing style detract
from his or her point, concept, or theory?
