Required Readings in Zinsser's On Writing Well:
Read carefully Chapters 22 (The Tyranny of the Final Product), 23 (A Writer's Decisions), and 24 (Write As Well As You Can). 

Required Online Readings (Models of Exposition)
--"Stop Ethnocentrism: A Case for Armchair Multiculturalism," by Laura Higgins Flaurand (Transitions Abroad).
--"Know Your Enemy: Confronting the Case Against Study Abroad," by Bill Hoffa (Transitions Abroad)
--"Advocating for Study Abroad," by Carl A. Herrin (Transitions Abroad)
--"What's the Big Idea?" by Dorothy Wickenden (The New Yorker, June 30, 2008)
--"Why Americans Aren't Dumb," by A.J. Jacobs (Esquire, July 2008)
--"Drugs: Case for Legalizing Marijuana," by Gore Vidal (New York Times, 1970)
--"In Defense of Talk Shows," by Barbara Ehrenreich (Time magazine, 1995)

Suggestions for Finding an Effective Issues Topic
First, read the assigned chapters and the online articles: the issues considered in these readings may stimulate some ideas of your own.   (As always, I'll be happy to provide you with additional examples.)  Next, drawing from your own academic and personal experiences, consider topics that you have already studied in depth–especially topics that you think are commonly misjudged or misunderstood.  Issues may be lurking here.  Similarly, think about some local controversies that may have attracted your interest (anything from the location of a new landfill, for instance, to the gating of River Street): if you have ideas on where to find reliable information, you may have a good issue to work with.

Topic ideas may also come to you as you consider the different approaches available to you in this assignment.

Conventional Argument.   The conventional argument can generally be thought of as a "pro" or "con" affair: physical education courses should (or should not) be required of nontraditional students; AASU should (or should not) sponsor a child-care center on campus; college athletes (or should not) be paid a salary and exempted from academic requirements; affirmative action programs do (or do not) perpetuate cultural myths of racial inferiority; Thanksgiving does (or does not) represent a continuing denial of the crimes committed against Native Americans; laws against drinking alcohol until the age of 21 do (or do not) encourage teenagers to abuse alcohol; sanctions against hate speech should (or should not) be implemented on campus; free condoms should (or should not) be distributed to high school students.  If you take a "pro" or "con" approach, make sure that you build your arguments on facts--not on feelings or opinions.

A Simple Exposition of Opposing Views. You might think of this approach as a conventional argument without the attitude: in other words, rather than actively trying to persuade your readers one way or another about a controversial issue, you set out to inform your readers about the complexities of an issue so that they have a basis for making up their own minds. (Despite appearing to be objective, a "simple exposition" of this kind may in fact be more persuasive than the conventional argument–particularly when you're attempting to get your readers to think about a generally unpopular or unlikely-sounding approach to an issue.)  Are there any issues that you have changed your mind about after much research and thought?  Or are you now genuinely uncertain about some issues that you used to hold firm opinions about?   Of course, any of the topics listed in the previous paragraph could also be adapted to this approach.

A Proposal.  You might want to propose a new holiday of your own devising–or a new required course for the core curriculum or a law requiring that all adolescents be exiled to Montana until their eighteenth birthday.  The basic parts of a proposal are a detailed explanation of the project or plan that you are proposing and a thorough justification for the implementation of the proposal.  Many proposals, in the spirit of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," take the form of satire.

Satire. Zinsser's chapter on "Humor" should give you some ideas about developing a satirical approach to a subject.  Traditionally, satire has been defined as the use of irony and exaggeration to ridicule instances of human folly or evil.    More broadly, satire might be understood as using humor to make a serious point.  Writing an effective satire isn't easy--particularly in our age of cheap sarcasm and the easy insult (i.e., one idiot making wisecracks about another idiot)--but the strategy is potentially powerful. Think about some of the ironies you may have perceived in our day-to-day lives: the elevation of self-esteem over intelligence in our educational system, perhaps, or the presumption that technology is saving us time (for what?) or that new communications systems are actually improving human communications (even when we have nothing at all to communicate).  Think about the proliferation of consumer warnings for stupid people or the fantastical worlds projected by infomercials. But above all keep in mind that the ability to find humor in our own behavior--in other words, to laugh at ourselves--may be the most effective approach of all.