Summaries strike a fine balance between many aspects of writing. They introduce both supportive and opposing arguments. "Her Point Is" expects summaries of writing to be a dialogue with others who are also writing in a specific area. In this sensem summarizing is completely logical. It's a way of restating what the other person said so that others can understand. This technique is completely normal in day to day conversation. Summarizing "requires balancing what the orginal author is saying with the writer's own focus." A good summary will include the proper intent of the first author as well as the claim from the responding author.

Papers are often written by launching into a claim and what a lot of us don't realize is that we've entered into a field where there are numerous experts already there. Summarizing is also an act of respecct. It says the responding author has reviewed what was claimed or already there before he or she entered the field. It says, "I have read your claim but what about this..."

If you look at it, summarizing is a proper way of introducing a new claim. It sets the stage for new ideas while giving respect to those already in the conversation. One might say, "So and so says this...however I believe this..." It becomes a simple template that was introduced to me during English 100. And after that writers are able to hide the template format and move forward with their writing styles to free form or even their own signature style.

One of the essential things to do is to keep in mind where your arguement is going, so that it develops. But it is also imperative that the other's argument is still prominent in the reader's mind. This allows the reader to draw conclusions and compare the two ideas. It also focuses the writer who might be going off on random tangent, away from their claim.