Exploring the PMS Myth and Its Implications

Question 1: Describe and represent your new ancillary source

Describe and represent your new ancillary source (selected from above options) and a specific idea will help you wrestle with the critical issue you've articulated in step you introduce this ancillary source as a way to develop your critique. Formulate a new idea or stakes of your critique.

What new insight do you have about this problem or issue? What new understanding do you have the author's text?

What new implications do you see if we take the information in this idea seriously? Explore something new and seemingly tangential to help you gain traction into this debate. Use the two sources to investigate a particular gap, limitation or problem in your essay, you’ll want to tackle another part of your chosen essay. You do not want your essay to be repetitive and continue to show us the same problem or gap in the essay or wrestle with the same ideas. Instead you want to use sources also refine and reframe the main essay’s ideas in exciting ways.

Make sure you return to the overarching problem and argument in your chosen essay in order to show the reader how we might re-interpret the author(s) argument as a whole, not just the part. With the yes-but-so-sowhat move, make sure the "So what" Is robust. Show us the implications: Why do we care about this new concept or idea in our consideration of this issue? How does this new source shape how you, the writer and curator of this intellectual discussion, understand your “star speaker’s” Views and the debate? Your objective remains dual: Use this ancillary text to develop your own informed and smart opinions about your chosen essay and the essay’s central problem (medicalization of some condition).

Connecting across ancillary texts: In closing, you might consider how this  ancillary texts build upon, amend, extend and/or counter the ideas of your other two ancillary sources. Remember, you’ll have to build transitions and further connections between these ancillaries in order to make a more cohesive essay so begin to do this work now by referring back to one of your other ancillary texts. Remember dialectical thinking: Try out building a dialectical idea or uncovering one in your new ancillary source.

The pms myth persists even though there is a severe lack of scientific evidence to support it. Despite the fact that the last century has produced a voluminous amount of research that resoundingly shows the menstrual phase has no negative impact on women’s cognitive functions,1 the competence of menstruating women continues to be questioned. From the endless number of messages confirming that pms is a common affliction, we assume there is a mountain of research to support this medical “truth.” But as you’ll see in this chapter, no strong consensus exists on the definition, the cause, the treatment, or even the existence, of pms.

1. Deduction: Author claims that y results from x, but a closer inspection reveals that z is a more crucial outcome of x.

2 evidence/method: Author claims x, but certain [problems with methodology/evidence] don’t fully support this claim.

3. Context: Author analyzes x in the context of [history/culture/global event], but because x is embedded in this [historical/cultural/global phenomenon], we must reinterpret the data/claims.

4. Near absence: Though author mentions x, x has far greater importance that granted within their argument.

5. Absence: In analyzing x, author overlooks/omits z, even though z significantly shapes x.

6. Dialectical/binary: Author concludes that x and y are two dichotomous categories, but a closer inspection reveals that x and y cannot be so easily distinguished.

7. Homogenize/essentialize: Author speaks about this group/event/thing but unintentionally treats this group/event/thing as if it were static, a homogenous not heterogeneous and dynamic group/event/thing.

8. Implicit/explicit: Author implies x, but we could bolster their argument if we make this argument explicit.  

9. Humble author: Author offers reader an excellent [piece of evidence/claim/idea] but does not sufficiently highlight its robust significance/value.  

10. Keyterm: Author defines x in this way, but because x might be redefined as we must reanalyze her claims/data.

11.Groups: Author claims x and/or y are beliefs/practices of this particular group, but this group:

12. Belongs to an even bigger group (e.g. New yorkers and bostonians v east coasters or americans v western culture).

13. Might be subdivided into significant subgroups (class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, region, etc.).

14. Don’t identify themselves as the same group within which the author has them classified.