In They Say, I Say by Gerald Graff, he sets out templates for convincing and good writing. One of his tips was to unbiasedly summarize the points of the author you’re referencing but highlight parts of their argument that are related to yours, in order to make your own argument stronger and clearer. The Buissert reading did this expertly, listing previous theories, and implying they were wrong or could be improved, and then builds his own argument. Creolization is the exchange of culture between Native Americans, Africans, and Europeans. Other scholars argued that it was a dominant (European) culture that was taking over a submissive (Native American) culture. He then goes into specific examples and counters previously established ideas proposed by the academics he had begun the passage with. I think his arguments were persuasive because he followed the format Graff lays out really well, and I think it’s a format that works. The Résendez reading was less formal, as it was the introduction to an account of a man’s journey rather than a scholarly article. I think what he says about Cabeza de Vaca really illustrates Buissert’s point because the Spanish party that comes across de Vaca and his remaining companions mistakes them for Natives at first, and they had taken some of the native culture, and the natives had learned from them a bit too.