Explore

RC Structural Summaries

We want structural summaries that look more like the bottom of this page, NOT the top!

Loose example:

PT :

P1: introduces a problem

presents a potential solution

downsides of solution

P2: presents alternative

P3: Author’s opinion on new strategy

Author’s position:

P1: nothing

P2: leans toward solution A

P3: gives two sense on new solution to propose

P1: PT54 S1 Q06 (GREAT comprehensive summary; TERRIBLE structural summary)

Passage A: Drilling fluids→ Mixture called drilling muds, essential to oil-well drilling

P1: DM is circulated through drill pipe and back up to well→ during this DM lubricates various parts of drill, cool and clean drill bit, lift rock chips (cuttings) to the surface, provide info down hole→ allows drillers to monitor behavior, flow rate, and composition of drilling fluid, also maintains well pressure to avoid cave-ins.

P2: DMs are made of bentonite and other clays and polymers mixed with fluid to control viscocity

Largest ingredient by weight is barite, very dense mineral→ also called the “barium meal” given before x-ray of digestive tract

P3: Drilling companies have proprietary formulas for specific drilling jobs→ studying impact of drilling waste/discharge is a problem because they are made of over 1,000 sometimes toxic ingredients

These ingredients are known by different trade names, generic descriptions, chemical formulae, slang, or kept secret by company or producers

Passage A explains the purpose and function of drilling muds but DOES NOT SPECIFY different types→ don’t let combination of passages obscure individual content, we didn’t learn about WBM and OBM until Passage B

Mentions barite and bentonite clay, but their specific function in WBM versus OBM is not articulated until Passage B

Explains why it is hard to study effects of drilling muds→ formulas have tons of different ingredients, ingredients are often kept secret, basically identification of DM composition is poorly recorded/communicated

Passage B:

P1: DMs, cuttings, and chemicals are released ONLY during drilling phase→ this particular effect of drilling are main environmental concern in offshore oil production, use is tightly regulated

In order to have operating permit you must have releases controlled→ discharge is closely monitored by offshore operator

P2: Water-based mud is a DM made of water, bentonite clay, and chemical additives that is used to drill shallow parts of well

Disperses easily and not particularly toxic (?) to marine organisms→ can legally be dumped overboard, companies usually recycle WBM until properties render them ineffective, then dump the rest into the sea

P3: Oil-based mud is used for drilling deeper wells→ different than WBM because it is around 30% mineral oil, also have higher concentration of barite (powdered heavy mineral) and additives

OBMs have greater negative environmental impacts because they don’t disperse well→ barite might impact organisms and mineral oil may be toxic

Cuttings (scraps basically) are sieved through drilling fluids and leftover OBMs can be thrown overboard, but there is a specific cap for oil content

Passage B says discharge of excess materials is tightly regulated→ mentions this is a big environmental concern

Discharge must be controlled to get permit→ so quantity of discharge is regulated but actual composition of discharge is hard to determine for reasons mentioned in Passage A

Describes specific composition of WBMs and mention use in drilling shallow areas

Describes some of composition and mentions use in deeper well drilling

After each description of DM author elaborates on their respective impacts

Compare environmental impact and briefly explain

Discusses disposal of OBMs→ lots of extra information that kind of throws you off

P2:

Paragraph 1: in the early stages of development, scientific disciplines often have thesis and antithesis→thesis deals with discovery and classification, finding patterns, and explaining widest possible range of phenomenon/antithesis or antidiscipline is more focused, examines units of construction, and belief that issue can be reformulated to address issues and explanations of antidiscipline

Paragraph 2: cytology (cell biology) and biochemistry demonstrate this pattern→ biochem is antidiscipline, cytology is discipline(?)→ biochemists did not engage in debate over form of protoplasm, more interested in the “fundamentals, esp about new enzyme theory of life, thought some details cytologists observed were misinterpreted

Paragraph 3: biochemists thought cytologists didn’t know enough about chem to even understand basics, and cytologists thought biochem methods were inadequate to understand structure of living cell→ At first Mendelian genetics and chromosome mapping did little to synthesize issue...

Paragraph 4: both sides were essentially right→ biochem did explain claims which eventually evolved into molecular biology (spacial arrangement and movement of molecules)→ cytology became modern cell biology, electron microscopy made it more similar in language and outlook to molecular biology (because it helped affirm certain details)→ interaction of discipline and antidiscipline moved both sciences towards synthesis (MOLECULAR GENETICS)

Paragraph 5: interaction of paired disciplines can have important results→ in late 19th c. cell research progress was fueled by competition, Joseph Fruton, biochemist, said competition and tensions between researchers are a principal source of vitality and are likely to lead to unexpected and exciting novelties

P3: PT 78 S4

Paragraph 1: Makes general claim about common approach/interpretation of a subject, then provides an example. Suggests previous analysis has shortcomings.

Paragraph 2: Shares first complication of initial concept and gives example. Shares second complication with another example.

Paragraph 3: Discusses critic from first example and qualifies complication from previous paragraph.

Paragraph 4: Expands on concept in order to introduce own conclusion.

Paragraph 5: Suggests direction for analysis mentioned in first paragraph.

P4: PT 78 S4 P3

Paragraph 1: Introduction and background on specific subject—contextualizes subject within larger discourse

Paragraph 2: Goes into detail about tokens mentioned in introduction. Discusses discovery of tokens and hypothesizes about purpose and evolution of tokens.

Paragraph 3: Discusses how tokens are relevant to ideas presented in introduction and briefly tracks development from tokens→written word.

P5: PT 78 S4 P4 (GREAT structural summary; NO content at all!)

Paragraph 1: Introduces and briefly describes subject

Paragraph 2: Explains normal behavior of subject then discusses scientific evidence introducing problem involving subject. Goes into detail about process that causes problems

Paragraph 3: Discusses future implications of problem

Paragraph 4: Discusses results of aforementioned evidence as well as initial challenges

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.