COORDINATION:
• Marge herself never truly acquired the Discourse she needed to write papers, but because Susan had the Discourse Marge was able to “mushfake”. This sentence is compound because it talks about Marge not truly acquiring a discourse and Marge “mushfaking” a discourse. These parts are emphasized equally because I want the reader to see the connection between “mushfake” and true acquisition.
• While Gee’s idea of social successful change proven incorrect by Jordan’s students, he also contradicts this idea in his writing.
REVISED: Not only is Gee’s idea of social successful change proven incorrect by Jordan’s students, but it is also contradicted in his writing. Jordan’s students proving Gee incorrect and Gee contradicting himself and equally emphasized because they hold similar importance/weight in my claim.
• Making do may not be enough to be successful in some instances, while it might be enough in others.
REVISED: Just as making do isn’t enough to be successful in one instance, it is enough to be successful in another instance. This sentence equally emphasizes “mushfake” working and not working because I want the reader to understand both cases are equally possible.
SUBORDINATION:
• The students predicted this unsuccessful outcome, showing that an act of resistance isn’t always as successful as Gee’s combination describes. This sentence contains both what the students did, and the outcome of that action. The underlined part of this sentence is what I want emphasize because it is the point that the actions of the students were used to prove.
• “Mushfake” doesn’t push far enough into the topic, it only provides a superficial mastering of a Discourse which deters success.
REVISED: Though “Mushfake” touches on the topic, it only provides a superficial mastering of a Discourse which deters success. This sentence discusses what “mushfake” does, and why that is not enough. The underlined portion is intended to be emphasized because I am explaining why “mushfake” doesn’t work.
