Harris, Chapter 3

                I think the part is interesting on page 55 when Harris says that his professor asked him why he wrote is whole paper discussing the work of somebody be didn’t think was very bright. From this, I take it that it is better to not just argue for a whole paper, but try and take something out of what the person has written. A paper looks better if you can say that yes this point is right, but I disagree with this and this, and this is why. He says that he tries to set aside the temptation to argue. “Countering looks at other views and texts not as wrong but as partial—in the sense of being both interested and incomplete,” (Harris, 56). I like this part because he is saying that instead of proving the writer wrong, you should point out what they are missing.