Review

Professor O'Malley's lectures are his opinions, his conclusions. They are always based in fact, and on the work of other historians, but they are nevertheless his opinions and should be treated with skepticism.

For this final journal entry, review the course lectures. Which one did you most disagree with, or find most problematic? Explain why--but you can't simply say "i disagree" or "it was boring" or "I wanted to know more about air power in WWII." You have to explain why you disagree and give examples of why the lecture was wrong in its approach and/or its conclusions. If you see a set of lectures that work together to reinforce a specific conclusion, and want to critique those, feel free. You don't have to be completely critical--if some part of a lecture raised questions for you that were never answered, or made conclusions which seemed extreme, you can make that point. You just have to explain why.

But remember that as always you need some evidence, and an argument.