Write a definition before meeting a range of alternatives
Invite the reader to formulate an answer to a specific question before revealing a comparable set of responses, then make that response set available for reflection rather than treat it as an automatic answer key.
Loving Each Other
Leo F. Buscaglia · 58 weeksWrite a definition before meeting a range of alternatives
SHORT SOURCE EXCERPT“define a loving relationship as you see it.”
The chapter describes respondents finding the definition question difficult, then asks readers to make their own definition before sharing the responses. A sequence of different definitions follows. The close emphasizes articulating and agreeing on expectations among the people in the relationship rather than choosing one author-approved formula.
The ordering lets the reader compare an initial formulation with several alternatives. The closing comment supplies a purpose for the comparison while preserving differences in what people want a relationship to include.
The source in context.
The chapter asks what a loving relationship means and invites the reader to formulate an answer. A range of respondents’ definitions follows, ending with the importance the author gives to making expectations explicit between the people involved.
Open this chapterWhat this example supports
The ordering lets the reader compare an initial formulation with several alternatives. The closing comment supplies a purpose for the comparison while preserving differences in what people want a relationship to include.
Its limit
The source supports the prompt and sequence but does not certify a printed blank writing area. Its plural definitions are selected responses; they are not independently established standards for healthy relationships.
Source & edition
Leo F. Buscaglia, Loving Each Other; supplied local scanned-text extraction; filename labels 1986, but no title-page, copyright or ISBN statement establishing the printing is present in the supplied text.
Supplied text, lines 443–519. The short quotation is checked against the source.
The completed whole-source AI synthesis supplied candidate observations and the broad argument map. This Codex editorial pass checked original source headings, section boundaries, openings and selected argumentative contexts; inspected every retained example; checked the existing pattern dictionary and base examples; and rewrote or rejected nominations. It is a source-checked editorial pass, not a new independently adjudicated whole-book reading.
supplied local scanned-text extraction; filename labels 1986, but no title-page, copyright or ISBN statement establishing the printing is present in the supplied text