Project 4 Rough Draft Workshop

First: extended due date for Project 4 final draft

Pair up with a partner (groups of three are also fine). Read your partner’s draft and answer the following questions on a loose sheet of paper. When you’re done, hand the draft back to your partner, and talk to your partner about your feedback. After that, call me over so that you can show me your work. At that point, you may leave.

I. Organization

• Does your partner provide a clear, identifiable thesis statement at the end of their introductory paragraph? If you can’t find your partner’s thesis statement, try to come up with a thesis statement for them that reflects the analysis in the rest of the paper.
• Is the essay logically organized so far? Does the essay transition smoothly from paragraph to paragraph?

II. Thoughtfulness and Thoroughness of Response

• Does your partner delve into enough detail with examples and evidence from their work in the class? For example, if your partner asserts that they’ve improved on writing with a specific target audience in mind, do they cite (for instance) a particular revision they made in Project 3 that proves this, or do they just make that assertion without backing it up with evidence? If there’s any room for improvement at all in this category–and I’d be surprised if there isn’t–specify what needs to be improved and speculate about how to improve it.

III. Clarity of the Writing

• Is the essay clearly written so far, with standard spelling, grammar, and punctuation? In addition to giving a general answer about the paper’s clarity as a whole, make sure you actually run through your partner’s draft with a pen and pencil and mark any specific grammatical/spelling errors.

Intro to Project 4

https://canvas.umd.umich.edu/courses/492291/assignments/4375885

A couple introductory pieces of advice based on what students in previous semesters have done.

First, make sure you actually quote sentences from your previous writing assignments (including the rough drafts and final drafts) in this course.

These quotes are the evidence for your claims about your progress, in the same way that quotes from the documentary, article, or book you analyzed for Project 2 were your evidence for that paper. At the same time, don’t over-quote. If you find yourself wanting to talk about a whole paragraph from a previous project, just quote the most relevant sentences where the major revisions occurred and paraphrase the rest. Here’s an example of what not to do.

Second, don’t be vague about how the stuff you’ve learned in COMP 105 may be applied to other writing situations. 

For example, you should not be speculating about the usefulness of this new rhetorical knowledge for you and your classmates or society in general. Rather, what’s important is the usefulness your rhetorical knowledge for you specifically (i.e. given your major, career path, current work, etc.) in new writing contexts you’re likely to face in the future, or ones you’re already facing in the present. For instance, don’t do the following (this is the concluding paragraph from a Project 4 draft from a previous semester):

I feel like the things that we have learned in comp 105 can also benefit us in many ways outside of this particular class and in different situations. One situation is if we ever need to give a presentation in which we are trying to persuade the audience to feel a certain way. I feel like the use of the three rhetorical concepts that we learned this semester would be perfect for this situation. Overall I feel as if the stuff we learned in this class will not only benefit us now, but if used correctly, can benefit us in certain situations for the rest of our lives.

The next example (from another Project 4 draft) is much, much better:

The confidence in my writing, the rhetorical concepts that improve it, and the revisions that perfect it, will all help me in future aspects of life too. Specifically, when it comes time to apply to medical school. A major part of the application process is the personal statement. This is where an applicant would write about themselves and why they chose medicine as a profession. Seeing how less than half of applicants get accepted into medical school, it’s pretty clear why I need to sound convincing when writing why I should be accepted. Luckily I’m able to utilize rhetorical appeals such as ethos, to explain why I’m a qualified applicant. I can use pathos by telling a meaningful story about my path to medicine. Knowing to adapt my writing to appeal to the target audience, the admissions committee, will also help immensely. Since I’m better at revising now, I’ll be able to catch any silly mistakes or weird-sounding sentences, furthering enhancing my ethos. So despite my beliefs coming into Comp105, I learned a lot of valuable skills and gained confidence for future college writing classes. I not only learned a lot about writing a persuasive essay, but also am able to apply it when writing papers. These skills will help me throughout the rest of my professional life.

Due next time:

• Rough Draft of Project 4 (get at least 3 pages done)

Project 3 Revision Workshop

1. Get into groups of at least 2 people.
2. Ideally, I’d like each group member to pull out (or access electronically) a copy of the most recently updated version of their Project 3. If certain group members don’t have one, they can still offer feedback on other group members’ drafts.
3. For each group member, using the information contained in his or her Response #5 determine the most important thing still in need of revision. Then, take that person’s draft and revise that single most important thing as a group. It’s up to you how to actually execute these revisions. If you’re working with a hardcopy of a group member’s draft, you might do the revision either on that hardcopy or on a separate sheet of paper. Or, if you’re working with an electronic copy, you might do the revision in Microsoft Word, Google docs, etc.
4. When you’re finished, I’ll ask you to show me the major revision you’ve made for each group member. Afterward, your group may leave.

Project 3 Diagnostics

Due next time: Response 5

This is not a rhetorical analysis. 

Which means, you shouldn’t have one paragraph devoted to ethos, another to pathos, and another to logos. Rather, these appeals are more like aspects of your argument that should be sustained throughout the paper, holistically. Correlatively, you don’t need to use these terms explicitly: you should just “do” them or “embody” them.

Don’t commit the “straw man” fallacy.

The “straw man” is a particular type of logical fallacy. According to our textbook, “a straw man argument is a diversionary tactic that sets up another’s position in a way that can be easily rejected” (57). In other words, if a particular counterargument is too difficult or too complex to respond to in an easy or simple way, we sometimes create an oversimplified or otherwise distorted version of that counterargument–a version that’s easier to rebut.

The problem is that you’re being unfair to the opposing viewpoint, since you’re giving the reader a less than accurate version of it. Moreover, by dumbing down your counterarguments, you’re effectively dumbing down your own paper; you’re preventing your own argument from developing and growing stronger.

How do we prevent this? By actually citing and quoting from a source every time we raise a counterargument.

Another point: target audience(s).

Make sure your clear about who your target audience is. To whom does your argument matter? If your paper doesn’t answer this question yet, a good place to do it is in the concluding paragraph. Indeed, specifying the target audience is in many ways the perfect job for a concluding paragraph. A good strategy for doing this in your concluding paragraph would be to be extremely straightforward, using some variation on the following:

(Pretend, for example, that I’ve written a paper arguing that daily use of smart phones and other social media-equipped technologies is bad for children’s  psychological and social development.)

To conclude, allow me to address an important question that I have yet to address head-on: to whom does this topic matter? As I see it, the issues discussed in this paper have the most immediate consequences for two audiences in particular. The first is parents. Given the numerous negative effects that social media use has on the adolescent brain, parents should find ways to limit the time that their children spend using such technologies. A second audience that has a stake in this topic is public school administrators. Given that most parents can’t monitor their children’s activity 24/7, part of the burden falls upon school administrators to more effectively crack down on social media use during school hours.

Project 3 Rough Draft Workshop

Pair up with one other classmate. Exchange rough drafts with them, and answer the following questions about your partner’s draft on a sheet of paper or on your laptop. No need to copy down the questions themselves; just write your answers to the questions. When you and your partner are both done writing, take five to ten minutes to run through what you’ve written and discuss your advice for each other. When you’re done, call me over so that I can review your answers. After I’ve done so, you may leave.

1) Does the essay have a clearly identifiable thesis statement? If not, after reading the draft, work with your partner to come up with a thesis statement, or to improve the one they already have.

2) So far, does the essay effectively integrate outside sources and research? Does the essay use signal phrases and avoid simply dropping in quotes at random? Does it take time to introduce each quote and explain why each quote is relevant to the paper’s argument?

3) Is the essay logically organized so far? Does it develop in a way that supports the initial claim in the thesis statement? Is each paragraph clearly identified by a topic sentence and a transitional device explaining how this new sub-topic relates to the previous paragraph? Overall, does the essay flow well?

4) Is the essay working to establish the exigence of the issue? Does it make clear that this is a topic worth arguing about in the first place? Does the essay present at least one counterargument? If so, what is it? If not, come up with a possible counterargument or objection to your partner’s thesis.

5) Did any argument or analysis in your partner’s paper seem unwarranted or exaggerated (in other words, did you think your partner was “jumping to conclusions” at times or not providing enough evidence for his/her claims)? If so, explain why.

6) On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammar? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times? If so, offer some detailed suggestions for revision.

7) What, in your opinion, is the strongest part of this paper? What is the weakest?

Project 3 Pre-Writing Workshop

Get into groups of at least two people. Make sure there is at least one laptop per group. For each group member, open up their Response 4 on Canvas and complete the following three tasks as a group. Your group’s response should be written in complete sentences. Designate one group member as the typer, who will be in charge of writing answers (in complete sentences) into a Microsoft Word or Google Docs document. You will email your answers to me at the end of class, as well as to each group member so that they can consult your group’s ideas as they begin writing their Project 3. When you’re done, call me over so that you can summarize each group member’s topic at this stage and ask me any questions you may have about your topics. After that, you may leave.

1. Based on this group member’s topic proposal and outline, as a group, come up with a working thesis statement for that group member’s paper. By “working,” I mean a work in progress–sort of like a “rough draft” version of the thesis statement, one that you can work with and improve later on. This working thesis statement could be anywhere from one to five sentences. (It’s also possible that you might go back and revise this prospective thesis statement after answering questions two and three below.)
2. Come up with at least one possible counterargument against any of the major claims this group member plans to make in their paper. Make sure that this is an intelligent counterargument, not an obviously false or ridiculous one. It would be great if I actually heard you all debating during this stage, but even if everyone agrees with this group member’s thesis, it’s still possible to come up with a well-thought-out disagreement, one you can imagine an intelligent reader of opposing views having. This should take at least one paragraph to answer sufficiently.
3. Who is(are) the target audience(s) for this group member’s paper? To whom does this topic matter? Who would disagree with the paper’s major claims? Who would be in a position to fix the problems that the paper identifies? In answering these questions, you may find that this paper has more than one potential target audience. Whatever you do, however, avoid the temptation to say that this person’s paper simply targets “everyone” or “people in general.” That’s too vague and probably not true! This should take at least one paragraph to answer sufficiently.

Inventing an Argument, Part II: Causal and Proposal

The Proposal Stasis 

Last time we ended by covering the evaluation stasis. We’ll continue using the evaluation stasis today as we move to the proposal stasis. This is because proposals always imply some degree of evaluation.  That is, in order to propose a solution to some problem, you have to begin by evaluating the current state of things to show that they’re bad in some important way and in need of fixing–only then does it make sense or feel exigent to propose a solution and fix what needs fixing.

But! The amount of evaluating you do versus the amount of proposing you do depends on the particulars of your topic and, as we shall see later today, on your target audience.

For example: most people in Michigan already agree that our roads are in horrible shape and in need of fixing. What people disagree about is the solution: what the best way to fix the roads is. Indeed, back in November of 2015, a roads funding bill narrowly made it through the Michigan House and Senate, and before Gov. Snyder went on to sign it, it faced a barrage of controversy:

If you wrote a paper making an argument about this issue, the exigence (the thing that would be provoking you to write) would probably not be that people don’t get how bad Michigan’s roads are–they certainly do.  Rather, the problem (the nature of the disagreement) is that people can’t agree on how to fix them.

Literally what this means for our hypothetical paper is that you wouldn’t need to spend many paragraphs persuading your reader that Michigan’s roads are in bad shape. If your audience is the average Michigander, the odds are that they’d already agree with you. So instead, you would want to prioritize the solution to the problem. The goal in this case is to convince your reader that your solution–the one you’re proposing–is the right solution, the better solution. Put otherwise, you would want to emphasize the “proposal” over the “evaluation” (although part of making this work is also, of course, evaluating other people’s proposals to show that yours is the better one–a kind of extra set of evaluations that comes after you begin to make your proposal).

How much evaluation or proposal you use also depends on who your primary target audience is.  For instance, let’s take the controversy over the NCAA’s classification of college athletes as unpaid amateurs:

Suppose we are writing paper focusing on this topic. Suppose our argument–or at least, the earliest inkling or starting point of our argument–is that, yes, these athletes should be compensated more fairly.

What are some possible target audiences for such a paper? (There’s more than one possibility.)

sports fans: a little evaluation targeted toward them because they affect the bottom line

students athletes themselves: proposal

higher-ups: people who write these rules (ncaa?); administration at the colleges themselves: evaluation; don’t see it as a problem–don’t appreciate the extent to which it is a problem–get that it’s a problem, just not an urgent one

For each of these groups, which stasis feels most appropriate–evaluation or proposal?

How might the other stases (definition, cause-consequence) come into play as we make either of these bigger, broader arguments?

definition ofver the status of these players: what is an “amateur”?

causality: the more it gets publicizied, the worse the effects are for the higher-ups

 

 

---

Group exercise

Get into groups of at least two people.

Groups to which I assign an odd number will brainstorm to come up with an argument that–based on the target audience for the argument–would require prioritizing evaluation over proposal. Remember, the exigence in this case is that not enough people (or not the right people, given the problem you’re trying to solve) get that some important thing is a problem in the first place.

Groups to which I assign an even number, you’ll come up with an argument in which the burden lies on the proposal side of the  equation. Remember, the exigence for an issue like this resides in the fact that, while everyone agrees that this important thing is a problem, nobody (or nobody within the “right” target group) can agree on how to solve that problem.

You have 15 minutes. Feel free to use the internet in your search. We’ll discuss the results thoroughly after you’re done.

---

Now, let’s work from your topics and try to develop them into fuller, more internally structured arguments–exactly the kind you should be shooting for with the Argument Essay.

In particular, we’ll think about any spots or areas in which the definition or causal stases may come into play as we develop the argument.

A little on the causal stasis:

Group 1: SAT is not a good measure of intelligence. Target audience=admissions people at universities. These aren’t the students–hence need to prove that it’s a problem

prove that there’s other causes for someone doing poorly besides the “intellect” it’s testing

Group 2: the water is unsafe for consumption and to solve it we should do the following:

p[rimary: govt officials; secondary: MI residents (beyond Flint residents)

cc: if you don’t fix this, these bad things will happen

disagreement over urgency

Group 3: school dress code k-12 is too strict

target audience: superintendents; why the status quo is a problem

define dress code currently; affects student outcomes;

Group 4: gun control; legislation needed–poroposing certain models of legislation; american citizens and legislators

definition: setting targets or benchmarks; cause-consequence: either we don’t do this and it gets worse or we do something

Group 5: SAT is ineffective–college administration

definition: clarify your sense of the way SAT is administered

cause consequence: can cause otherwise qualified students to not get into college on the basis of one test or one day

Group 6: campus needs more parking spaces

eval = administration; proposal side = students;

definition: define poor parking

cause: students give up and go home; lateness affects learning and instruction

Group 7: gun control; evaluation

voters

definition: assault weapon

cause-consequence: restricitng won’t have the intedned effect

Inventing an Argument, Part 1: Definition and Evaluation

Project 3 Instructions

When you’re inventing and composing an argument–which is what you’ll be doing in Project 3–knowledge of stasis theory will help you figure out exactly where and to what extent you disagree with other thinkers on your topic, and will thus help you give a shape or structure–a clear logos–to the stances you wish to make throughout the paper.

Remember that there are four main stasis forms:

1. disagreement over definition
2. disagreement over evaluation
3. disagreement over causality
4. disagreement over the nature of a proposal

We’ll cover proposals and causality next time. Today, we’ll cover definition and evaluation.

The Definition Stasis

Let’s pretend that you’re writing an argumentative essay about animal cruelty and its relation to the practice of wearing animal fur.

In order to make a good-quality argument–to determine credibly whether or in what situations wearing fur counts as animal cruelty–this paper would want to look at multiple examples of fur-wearing practices. Essentially, the goal would be to think about whether each of these examples meets the criteria of animal cruelty–and in the process, after interpreting those various examples, this paper would arrive at a conclusion about what the threshold is at which wearing fur becomes animal cruelty.

In order to do that, however, we would need to establish with our reader what animal cruelty is in the first place.

To start, we might scour the internet and UM library to do some research into animal cruelty laws. Some research questions guiding our search might be the following: Is there a national, federal definition of what counts as animal cruelty, i.e. according to federal law? Does the definition of animal cruelty (i.e. of what’s prosecutable as animal cruelty) change from state to state as a consequence of different state laws? Are there other contexts–besides the legal context–where we could look to discern the criteria people use to define animal cruelty?

To this end, get into groups of at least two people and, using the internet or any knowledge you already have, discover at least three criteria for what counts as animal cruelty. You can derive these criteria from federal or state laws, or possibly even from sources of a non-legal nature (e.g. philosophy/ethics). Work with purpose–you have 15 minutes. Write these down (I won’t be collecting them, but I will be asking your group to contribute.

Something counts as animal cruelty when it involves the following:

1. Question of the animal being treated as a means to an end without respect: unethical means to an end

2. violation of duty to provide care (neglect)

3. killing/harming an animal for trivial purposes (no good reason for it)–in the case of intentional harm

4. depends on the kind of animal: domesticated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we’ve got a basic working definition of animal cruelty (not a perfect definition, maybe, but one that can help us get our argument going, and one which we could return to and revise later), let’s see whether some particular examples match these criteria.

Animal cruelty (broader category)	Kim wearing fur (particular example)
A) is the animal domesticated?	A) no
B) neglect?	B) maybe–depends on production process
C) was there a good reason to kill this animal?	C) probably no–the climate doesn’t necessitate; aesthetic luxury, not a necessity
D)	D)

But what about this example?

Animal Cruelty (broader category)	Native American wearing fur (main term)
A) is the animal domesticated?	A) probably not
B) neglect?	B) if not domesticated, you can’t neglect it
C) was there a good reason to kill this animal?	C) if yes, why? for survival purposes bc of climate; respectful (not wasteful)
D)	D)

---

The Evaluation Stasis

Much like definitional arguments, evaluations also involve a criteria-match structure. In this case, however, you are not providing the criteria that a thing must meet to be defined in a category, but rather the criteria it must meet to be evaluated as a “good” or “bad” instance of whatever category it already belongs to.

There are three types of evaluation criteria:

• Practicality: Is something practical or impractical? Useful or useless? Feasible to implement, or unfeasible to implement? Possible and realistic, or impossible and unrealistic?
• Aesthetics: Is something beautiful or ugly? What kind of image does it send out to the world–is that image good/beneficial/constructive or bad/harmful/dangerous?
• Ethics: Is something right or wrong, just or unjust, fair or unfair, moral or immoral?

Example: NASA sending humans into space

Evaluate in terms of…

Practicality: increases potentially useful scientific knowledge; maybe impractical because it’s expensive; potential security benefits;

Aesthetics: source of national pride

Ethics: ethical because of its practicality; unethical bc putting human life at risk

Think back to our two “is wearing fur animal cruelty” examples:

Practicality: no–no necessity (luxury is by definition not necessary)

Aesthetics: the coat is pretty; but: puts out image of wealth

Ethics: unethical

versus

Practicality: yes

Aesthetics:

Ethics: yes

 

Project 2 Revision Workshop

1. Get into groups of at least 3 people.
2. Ideally, I’d like each group member to pull out (or access electronically) a copy of the most recently updated version of their Project 2. If certain group members don’t have one, they can still offer feedback on other group members’ drafts.
3. For each group member, determine the most important thing still in need of revision. (Think back to what you wrote for your Response 3.) Then, take that person’s draft and revise that single most important thing as a group. It’s up to you how to actually execute these revisions. If you’re working with a hardcopy of a group member’s draft, you might do the revision either on that hardcopy or on a separate sheet of paper. Or, if you’re working with an electronic copy, you might do the revision in Microsoft Word, Google docs, etc. (If you’re using Microsoft Word to make these revisions, you might want to enable the “Track Changes” function to keep track and of the changes you’ve made in the Word Document.)
4. When you’re finished, call me over to show me the major revision you’ve made for each group member. Afterward, your group may leave–or, if you’d like me to review one of your drafts in detail, now would also be a good time for that (in the style of an “extended office hours” meeting).

Project 2 Diagnostics + MLA Info

First: Response 3 is due next time

Three overall pieces of advice:

First, concerning intro paragraphs: how to structure them? Start by giving your reader a basic (two- or three-sentence) introduction to the condition or problem or idea that the text or documentary is about, but without yet referring to the text or documentary itself.

Then, simply and straightforwardly introduce the text/documentary on which you’re focusing, accompanied by a basic (two- or three-sentence) summary of the text or documentary.

Then, conclude the paragraph with a thesis statement area (which can and indeed probably should be more than one sentence!) that informatively, but also efficiently (i.e. not too wordily), specifies the following:

A) what the text or film’s argument is,

B) the dominant rhetorical techniques that the text or film is using to make its argument,

C) what group or groups the text/film is targeting, and

D) what its basic rhetorical situation is (e.g. were there any major constraints on its the ability of this text or film to be persuasive, and does the text/film appear to be aware of those in the rhetorical choices that it’s making?)

Second: as in Project1 1, it might be a good idea to do a description/summary paragraph if you find yourself unable to briefly summarize (in a sufficient manner) the text in your intro paragraph.

Third: Avoid circular logic when you’re trying to explain this text’s target audience.

Tips for target audience discernment:

–try to discern the piece’s implicit frame of reference (what does the author assume he/she needs to explain, what does he/she assume the audience already knows)

–look out for moments where the author refers collectively to a “we” or “us”

MLA info:

Use the Purdue OWL:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/

MLA sample paper: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/media/pdf/20160920114529_747.pdf

1) Citing a book:

Last Name, First Name. Title of Book. Publisher, Publication Date.

Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. Penguin, 1987.

In-text citations for books:

Gleick argues that “akdsfnadskngsdl” (12).

As one critic puts it, “akdsfnadskngsdl” (Gleick 12).

2) Citing a scholarly article:

Author(s). “Title of Article.” Title of Journal, Volume, Issue, Year, pages.

Duvall, John N. “The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo’s White Noise.” Arizona Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, 1994, pp. 127-53.

In-text citation for scholarly articles:

Duvall argues that “sngsdkjgn” (145).

As one critic puts it, “asjdngsfjkgnsjkdng” (Duvall 145).

3) Citing time-based media, such as films:

Option 1:

List films by their title. Include the name of the director, the film studio or distributor, and the release year. If relevant, list performer names after the director’s name.

The Usual Suspects. Directed by Bryan Singer, performances by Kevin Spacey, Gabriel Byrne, Chazz Palminteri, Stephen Baldwin, and Benecio del Toro, Polygram, 1995.

To emphasize specific performers or directors, begin the citation with the name of the desired performer or director, followed by the appropriate title for that person.

Lucas, George, director. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Twentieth Century Fox, 1977.

Option 2 (cite it as its YouTube page):

If the author’s name is the same as the uploader, only cite the author once. If the author is different from the uploader, cite the author’s name before the title.

 “8 Hot Dog Gadgets put to the Test.” YouTube, uploaded by Crazy Russian Hacker, 6 June 2016, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBlpjSEtELs.

 McGonigal, Jane. “Gaming and Productivity.” YouTube, uploaded by Big Think, 3 July 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkdzy9bWW3E.

Which one you choose is up to you.

In-text citations for films:

When creating in-text citations for media that has a runtime, such as a documentary film, include the range of hours, minutes and seconds you plan to reference, like so: (00:02:15-00:02:35).

As the documentary puts it, these whales were forced into a “dark, metal, 20 foot by 30 foot pool for two thirds of their life” (00:16:41-00:16:55).

 

4) Citing web pages:

Name of author (if available). “Title of web page.” Name of Site, Version number, Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site (sponsor or publisher), date of resource creation (if available), URL, DOI or permalink. Date of access (if applicable).

“Athlete’s Foot – Topic Overview.” WebMD, 25 Sept. 2014, http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/tc/athletes-foot-topic-overview.

Lundman, Susan. “How to Make Vegetarian Chili.” eHow, http://www.ehow.com/how_10727_make-vegetarian-chili.html. Accessed 6 July 2015.

 

In-text citations for web sources are difficult to wrap one’s head around at first. This is because there are no page numbers. So if not the page number where you’ve found the quote, what do you put in the parenthetical citation?

 

The answer is simple: you put the first thing that appears on the Works Cited page entry for that source. This would be the author’s last name, or if no author is given, then the title of the web page. Examples:

There is evidence of this commonly held misconception all over the web; as one commentator puts it, “blabh lakblkanfdklnafbn” (Kennedy).

*If you use the author’s name when you introduce the quote, no parenthetical citation is necessary:

Kennedy exemplifies this commonly held misconception when he asserts that “blabh lakblkanfdklnafbn.”

In-text citation for a web source when no author is given:

There is evidence of this commonly held misconception all over the web; as one anonymous commentator puts it, “blabh lakblkanfdklnafbn” (“10 Fatal Diseases Curable Simply by Drinking Lemon Water”).

Here are some more helpful tips regarding how to locate all the bibliographic data for a web source:
http://courses.semo.edu/library/infolit/mlastyle_web.htm

5) Article in an Online Magazine–basically the same as web pages above:

Provide the author name, article name in quotation marks, title of the web magazine in italics, publisher name, publication date, URL, and the date of access.

Bernstein, Mark. “10 Tips on Writing the Living Web.” A List Apart: For People Who Make Websites, 16 Aug. 2002, alistapart.com/article/writeliving. Accessed 4 May 2009.