Choose one of the Unit 1 readings and make an argument about the writer′s main claim. Your argument should identify a problem with some aspect of the writer′s claim, should provide solid reasoning and text-based evidence for your ideas, and should say something about what you hope your paper will contribute to the larger academic conversation. The paper should be able to be understood without prior knowledge of the class readings. It should include a summary of the main argument your chosen writer makes, as well as summarize information, as needed, from the larger conversation in order to support your claim, and/or anticipate opposing positions. Ways to approach this argument might include (but are not limited to) the following: 1) Identifying ideas within a text that are contradictory to one another, thus invalidating some part of that text 2) Explaining why one text fails to consider opposing, superior ideas from another text 3) Explaining how a text′s approach is somehow inferior to a text that has a similar perspective, but a different approach (can also be used for texts that have opposing perspectives/similar approaches, or opposing perspectives AND approaches) 4) Arguing that one author′s concerns are potentially invalid when broader concerns from another author are considered 5) Arguing that a text is somehow incomplete without sympathetic ideas from another text 6) Arguing that multiple texts have deficiencies until they are put into conversation with one another Note that your assessment does not have to challenge (or even address) all aspects of a chosen writer′s text, When assessing the writer’s ideas, you may use any of the reading we have discussed in class, but you may NOT use outside sources, hypothetical examples, or personal experience. The final paper must include at least two, but no more than three Unit 1 sources TOTAL, including the main text under discussion. Here are some questions to help you brainstorm: How do the authors believe our society is preparing for the future? How much faith does each author place in humanity when considering if the future will be good or bad? How trustworthy does each author seem when multiple texts are put into conversation with one another? Do the authors seem to think that technology can help or hinder future societies? How concerned are the authors about society′s ability to address climate change issues? How effective is each text at making its argument, and how does the level of effectiveness change when the texts are considered side-by-side?