Considering Types

In this post, I will explain which types of arguments I might use for Project 4. In addition, I will explain, which ones I will not use.

Chiltepinster, "Mocking Bird Argument." 06/26/11 via Pixabay. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

For this project, I might choose to write either a position or causal argument. A position argument would allow me to thoroughly evaluate the issue and inform my readers of this debate. It would also allow me to input my own ideas and opinions, which would allow me to address all significant parts of my debate. A causal argument could also be effective here in identifying a cause for the controversy surrounding the issue. As the reading says, "By pointing to the cause, you are able to also help your audience understand the possible solutions to your controversy as well" (414). This might help me pinpoint exactly what is so controversial here and why it is so important to solve this issue.

In this case, an evaluative, proposal, or refutation argument might not work very well. Because this technology is so new and controversial, no solution has really be proposed to evaluate. Also due to this, it would be difficult to propose any simple solution that my audience would be able to understand. Similarly, a refutation argument might be difficult for my audience to understand, especially if they are not very familiar with the issue under debate.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Sam's post on her Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types, as well as Chelsea's post on her Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types. Both of them did a great job matching their argument types with their rhetorical action plans. They both narrowed down their audiences, chose their genres based on this, and then chose their argument types based what they are arguing and whom they are arguing for. I think this strategy is very effective, and it is something I did as well with my own planning. I did realize that their audiences/genres were a little more specific than mine, so this might be something that I'll need to work on as I continue with this project. Overall, however, I am happy with how my own blog posts turned out.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this blog post, I will outline my rhetorical action plan for Project 4 by answering questions regarding my audience, genre, and responses/actions I expect from my argument. These questions can be found in Writing Public Lives pages 412-413.

geralt, "Business Idea Planning Business Plan Business." March 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

Audience

• Knowledge: My audience probably knows the very basics of this controversy. They likely know what stem cells are, possibly due to some media attention from popular news sources. However, this audience likely does not know the scientific specifics of this technology. They also might not know the details of this particular controversy involving genetic engineering of human embryos. Because of their limited knowledge of the topic, they might have a vague understanding of which side of the controversy their opinions might lie, but they may not be completely sure of their beliefs.
• Values: My audience might have beliefs that make their opinions lie on either side of this controversy. However, I think it would be fair to assume that the audience collectively believes in the value of science, and supports more research in curing life-threatening diseases. Their values might differ further depending on which side of the debate they choose to support.
• Standards of Argument: This audience might not be persuaded by very scientific arguments/evidence that is difficult to understand. However, evidence that is condensed down to certain statistics or narratives might be persuasive and easier for this audience to understand.
• Visual Elements: This audience will not be persuaded by scientific diagrams or visual representations, because they may not be able to understand these visual elements. However, they might be persuaded by pictures that show some emotional appeal, since these are easy to communicate and understand. Simple graphs and tables might also be logically appealing, as long as they are not too dense.
• Purpose: My audience might be reading my argument to get a better understanding of this controversy and/or of my perspective in particular. Because of this, my main goal of this argument might be to expand the audience's understanding of this debate, and of why my perspective is more compelling in particular. Furthermore, I want to try to motivate them to at least take an active position in this debate by posting on social media about it or reading to increase their own understanding. This might motivate my audience to further their own knowledge on the subject.

Genre: News article in a well-known nonscientific online publication

• Function: This genre is mainly used for informative purposes. However, if I published an article in a relatively opinionated publication, or in the opinions column of such a publication, this genre can be used to both inform and persuade a particular audience. In this way, it would be effective for this particular audience, given that they don't have much prior knowledge of this subject.
• Setting: This genre could be used in many different online news publications without much of a scientific background. Because of its broad appeal to people without much knowledge on the subject, the setting is very broad, allowing a broader audience to have access to it.
• Visual Elements: This genre might use some pictures, perhaps with an emotional appeal. It might also use some simple graphs and tables that are placed in a manner that helps me prove a certain point.
• Style: This style might be semi-formal, as it falls somewhere between informal and formal. The diction should be easy to understand and the tone should keep the reader's interest, but it should not be so informal that it makes the reader questions its credibility.

Examples: Example 1, Example 2

Genre: Blog post in a reader friendly blog

• Function: This genre is mainly used as a way to communicate opinions and interests. Depending on the nature of the blog, this genre is generally open to anyone with an interest in the subject, although it does depend on the blog. The blog post that I would write for this project would assume some prior knowledge, but still be accessible to a wide audience.
• Setting: This genre can be used in a very wide setting. Blogs can be as general or specific as the writer wants it to be, so this genre can be used in many places. Generally it is used in more informal settings, though.
• Visual Elements: This genre tends to use more pictures, depending on the nature of the blog. Relevant pictures are common elements, while graphs and tables might be less common for this genre.
• Style: The style of this genre is very informal, as it uses informal diction and tone to appeal to its audience. It can sometimes be conversational so that it appeals to the reader a little more.

Examples: Example 1, Example 2

Responses/Actions

• Positive Support: 

1. Increased awareness and interest in the topic
2. Supportive social media posts
3. Public support for the technology through petitions, etc.

• Negative Rebuttals

1. Ethical argument in opposition of technology
2. Safety concerns 
3. The concern for designer babies

• I might respond to the ethical argument by pointing out that the embryos being experimented on are specifically the kind that would not be able to potentially grow and be born, due to a mutation. In addition, these embryos are willingly donated in the name of research, which should ease ethical concerns. In response to the safety concerns, I would point out that more research is currently being done to advance the technology to the point that we could actually experiment on embryos. Scientists agree that the technology isn't yet advanced enough to use on embryos. Finally, I would argue that designer babies are not yet a real concern, because the science is not yet nearly advanced enough to even consider altering babies' genetic codes.
• I want to raise awareness about this topic in relatively nonscientific communities. This could potentially cause increased interest, which could lead to more social media attention for the topic. This could eventually cause public movements such as petitions and other such movements.

Analyzing Purpose

This blog post will analyze the purpose of my argument using the instructions detailed in Writing Public Lives page 326.

geralt, "Think Thinking Hand Reflect Light Bulb." Feb. 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

1. The goal of my public argument will be to raise awareness about this controversy in an audience that has not usually been addressed in other public speech acts. In particular, I want to raise awareness amongst people who are not usually very interested in science, in order to show them why they should care about this debate. I also want to focus on possible positive outcomes of this technology. Most other public speech acts have focused on the negative side of this technology, either by demonstrating the harm it could to or by refuting the aforementioned argument. I want my argument to argue for this technology by showing the good that it could do, rather than the bad. This might prove beneficial in making my audience interested in the topic.

2. Plausible Actions/Reactions

• Increased interest in the topic
• Social media posts to raise awareness (Twitter, blogs, etc.)
• Petitions to continue research
• Further research on the topic

Not Plausible

• Scientific research on the topic (in person)
• Active protesting/lobbying
• Reading scientific papers to understand the topic

3. Increased interest in this topic might motivate some people to act on the topic. This could lead to further discussions through social media and other outlets of public opinion. In turn, this would raise awareness about the issue, which might motivate others to also become interested and act in favor of the technology. In this way, this plausible action repeats itself with different audiences.

4. Because I am not aiming to write a very scientific text, my audience will likely be composed of people who have little or no knowledge of this issue. While these people would have to be somewhat educated to understand the issue, they could include anyone from high school graduates to college students. I want this text to be accessible to anyone with moderate levels of education, since I have noticed that a lot of related texts are not aimed at people who are uninformed of the subject. In order to write for this audience, I will have to adjust my tone accordingly. This will allow me to effectively communicate with this audience.

Analyzing Context

In this post, I will analyze the context of my chosen controversy for Project 4. I will do this by answering the questions on Writing Public Lives page 340.

geralt, "Problem Analysis Solution Magnifying Glass Text." Oct. 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

This debate regarding stem cell research on human embryos has two broad perspectives, one of which does approve of this research, and another that does not. The perspective that supports this research is a relatively scientific perspective. People with this perspective argue that this type of research is necessary in order to advance the scientific field, and stem cell research in particular. People with the opposing perspective mostly come from an ethical viewpoint, and argue that it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?

The major disagreement between these perspectives has to do with the use of human embryos in this type of gene-editing technology. While people who support this experimentation believe that human embryos' genetic codes should be edited for research, the opposition sees major problems with this. In particular, this perspective cites ethical and safety concerns regarding this procedure.

3. What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?

These perspectives both probably agree that scientific advancement is important for curing diseases such as beta thalssemia, the blood disorder at the focus of this controversy. However, they believe in different ways to cure these diseases. The supporters want to continue with this stem cell research, while the opponents do not want to continue with this type of research.

4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

The supporters of this experimentation hold a strong belief in scientific advancement for the sake of the greater good. The opponents probably hold a similar belief, but have a stronger belief in the value of human life. This perspective would not sacrifice what they see as a human life for the "greater good" of scientific progress.

5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

The supporters are asking their audience to take a stand in favor of this experimentation. The more scientific texts are encouraging scientists to further pursue this research, while the texts aimed at a slightly less scientific audiences encourage readers to simply take a stand for the experiments through platforms such as social media. For instance, this article demonstrates a perspective that supports this science.

The opponents are asking their scientific audiences to temporarily (or permanently) halt such scientific procedures until better safety/ethical standards are conceived. They are asking their less scientific audiences to again take a stand against this through platforms such as social media as well. For example, in this blog post an ethicist encourages the audience to be critical of studies like this due to ethical oversights they might stem from.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?

The perspective in favor of this type of scientific experimentation is most useful in supporting my argument. Because I plan to also argue in favor of this, it will be useful to see what previous arguments have used as evidence. While I am not arguing against this procedure, it will also be useful to see what the other perspective is using as evidence, possibly to refute their arguments.

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?

The ethical perspective against this scientific testing will probably be the greatest threat to my argument. This is because not a lot can be said against ethical arguments, and there isn't any evidence I can call forth to refute their arguments. Ethics is mostly an issue of beliefs, and there is not much I could say to disprove their arguments.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Andrea and Mira's blog posts. Both of them had really well-developed blog posts that clearly answered the questions about context. I found it interesting that they were both able to identify some ideological common ground between them. Although each perspective in their debates seemed very different, they clearly showed that they have significant ideological overlaps. This helped me realize how important these points of agreement could prove to be in my own debate, as drawing on these could really strengthen my own argument as well.

Audience and Genre

This blog post will identify two audiences that Project 3 might be aimed towards, as well as different places I might choose to publish my research based on this.

Martin H., "The Caxton Celebration - William Caxton showing specimens of his printing to King Edward IV and his Queen." n.d. via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain License.

Audience 1: College educated individuals with an interest in scientific discovery

This group of people, although perhaps not formally a part of the scientific community, are likely to be interested in new scientific discoveries and debates. Because the topic of my controversy is about ethics and safety issues as well as scientific technology, it is still accessible to those who are educated, even if they do not practice in the scientific field. This group of people is likely to be interested in any controversial issue emerging from science, even if they merely stumble across an article like mine.

Places for Publication:

1. An informative article in a well-known online news publication

An article in a well-known online news publication is accessible to anyone who is interested in current events, whether it is scientific in nature or not. These news publications are often aimed at educated individuals with a variety of interests. An article about this topic published in one of these publications would allow a wider audience to become informed of my research, rather than just scientific experts. However, I would have to be sure to write in a manner that is comprehensible for a wide audience like this.

Examples:

Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns

Chinese Gene-Editing Experiment Creeps Out Scientists

2. A blog post in a blog focused on science

This audience would likely search for information in more informal news sources as well, such as blogs. This type of blog adopts an informal tone about a relatively academic subject, allowing educated people without much scientific background to also learn about the subject. However, these blog posts are also likely to be opinionated, so people with different opinions will likely go to different blogs.

Examples:

Welcome to the Unpredictable Era of Editing Human Embryos

The Ethical Divide of Embryo Editing

Audience 2: Scientific experts who work in the field

While the former audience was possibly less informed of this topic, this audience is likely already informed about the controversy and technology in question. Thus, they would interested in my project if it contributes more to their knowledge. Because they already know quite a bit about this controversy, they are probably more comfortable with more scientific texts.

Places for Publication:

1. An article in a scientific news source

An article published in a news source that specializes in science-related news would be more accessible for this audience. This type of article is probably more scientific in that it may use more scientific jargon, which narrows the target audience to this audience.

Examples:

World's first genetic modification of human embryos reported: Experts consider ethics

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

2. An entry in a scientific journal

Seeing as most people who read scientific journals are a part of a given scientific field, this audience is likely to obtain much of its information from these types of scholarly journals. Again, these journals are generally not meant to be accessible for a wide audience, as they are specifically targeted towards scientific experts and researchers. Because of this, this type of publication would considerably narrow the target audience.

Examples:

Genetic Modification of Preimplantation Embryos: Toward Adequate Human Research Policies

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In my annotated bibliography, I have added sources that can help me answer the questions described in my previous blog post. This annotated bibliography can be found here.

PDPics, "Research Find Loupe Search Information Discovery." Oct. 2014 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

Narrowing My Focus

In this post, I will post a three questions from my previous blog post that I feel are most important to answer before starting on Project 3.

Melki, Serge, "The narrow streets of Barcelone." 03/06/09 via Wikimedia Commons. Attribution License.

Question 1: Outside of the scientific experts and researchers, what notable people are getting involved in this controversy?

Because of the scientific nature of this controversy, I feel that it is important to understand the scope of the controversy outside of the scientific community. While it is no surprise to me that scientific experts and researchers are taking part in the conversation about this controversy, I am interested to see what types of people without scientific backgrounds are taking an interest in this affair. This will help me understand the broader scope of this controversy.

Question 2: Did this study remain confined to the scientific community at first, or did it immediately become a part of mainstream media?

This question relates to my first question in that it is again looking particularly at this controversy from a nonscientific perspective. This question interest me because the controversy did seem to gain some mainstream attention, according to my research for Project 1. By researching this question, I hope to understand exactly how this happened, and if there was a block of time during which the debate was confined to the scientific community.

Question 3: Have similar studies occurred recently that have sparked this sort of debate?

When I was conducting my research for Project 1, I narrowed my focus to one particular study that recently occurred in China. However, this question is aimed at understanding more of the context surrounding this study. I think it will be interesting to learn if there are other studies that have occurred, which have sparked similar debates. If this study is the only one of its kind, it would give me a different perspective on the controversy as a whole.

Questions About Controversy

In this post, I will draft a series of questions that will help me reframe my controversy for Project 3. The controversy I have chosen to focus on was elaborated on in Project 1. It focuses on the ethical and safety implications of using gene-editing technology on human embryos.

Varlan, Horia, "Question mark made of puzzle pieces." 10/23/08 via Flickr. Attribution License.

WHO is involved in the controversy?

1. Outside of the scientific experts and researchers, what notable people are getting involved in this controversy?
2. What types of organizations are publicly making their opinions heard, either through public speech acts or public policies?
3. Is this controversy gaining any political traction, or is it confined to the scientific community?

WHAT is up for debate?

1. Are the ethical issues associated with this debate confined to testing on human embryos?
2. Do opponents of this testing oppose the CRISPR technology as well as the subjects?
3. Have similar studies occurred recently that have sparked this sort of debate?

WHEN did this controversy unfold?

1. How long after this technology was discovered did this study and the accompanying controversy emerge?
2. Has the controversy died down at all since the study was published earlier this year?
3. How long did it take for this study to gain the attention that it did?

WHERE did this controversy unfold?

1. What is the background of the university at which this study took place?
2. What is the cultural context in China surrounding this debate?
3. Does the culture of the US differ significantly from that of China when it comes to this controversy?

HOW did this controversy unfold over the media?

1. Did this study remain confined to the scientific community at first, or did it immediately become a part of mainstream media?
2. What types of media sources publicized this study so that people outside of the scholarly community were notified of the controversy?
3. How has popular media affected the scope of this controversy?

Reflection on Project 2

In this post, I will reflect on Project 2 by answering nine questions from Writing Public Lives page 520.

geralt, "Think Thinking Reflect Light Bulb Thoughts Flash." February 2015 via Pixabay Public Domain License.

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

When revising, I spent a lot of time on my introduction and conclusion, as they were not communicating exactly what I wanted to communicate for this assignment. To revise these, I spend a lot of time narrowing my focus and editing my thesis accordingly. My first draft was also very long, with lots of long, repetitive sentences. Because of this, I also had to revise my essay to make it shorter and more concise.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis and organization?

I revised my thesis so that it was more concise and gave a clear indication of which rhetorical strategies I was going to talk about in the essay. I also had to edit to make sure the thesis had a clear argument, and not just a summary. After this, I edited my organization so that it followed the thesis logically. I had to pay special attention to ensure that each paragraph focused on a single point and not multiple points.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift of purpose?

These changes came about due mostly to a shift in purpose. I realized that my draft focused more on the content of the article and less on the actual rhetorical strategies used in the article. To fix this, I had to revise my thesis statement and the content of the essay to reflect this newly defined purpose.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

I think these changes increase my credibility as an author. The changes helped me have a more clearly defined thesis and concise argument, and this could potentially increase my reliability as an author. I have found that authors with concise, clearly written arguments often come across as more credible, so these changes might have had that effect as well.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

This changes made my argument more clear, which could make the writing more accessible to my audience. This audience, composed of college freshmen in my field, are likely not trained to read more dense works. By shortening my argument and making it more concise, these changes made it more clear for this particular audience to read.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

Before editing, I found that I had a lot of long, rambling sentences with dependent clauses. These sentences were often repetitive, and not very clear in communicating my point. To fix this, I tried to shorten my sentences and use simpler structures that my audience would have an easier time understanding.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

These changes will help my audience understand my purpose more easily. The simpler sentence structures helped make my sentences shorter and more easy to understand. This should help the audience understand my argument more clearly, since the sentences are more to the point.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

When I first began writing this essay, I was still used to writing in the genre of a QRG. Because of this, my tone was a little more informal than it should have been, and my paragraph were shorter with less information and evidence in them. However, I had to reconsider the conventions when revising, because the genre of an analytic essay is very different from that of a QRG. To do this, I added more evidence and followed the format of an analytic essay more closely. I also had to change my tone accordingly.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

This reflection helped me realize that I do edit a lot more than I initially thought I did. This reflection showed me that, while I was writing my first draft, I more or less put all of my ideas onto paper without really organizing my thoughts and arguments. While revising, I got more of an idea of what my argument should actually focus on, and I edited my essay accordingly. This process showed me that my writing process does vary considerably depending on the type of paper I am writing.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Casey and Andrea's posts. I found that there were some things that we had similar experiences with, and others that I had a different experience with. It sounds like the revision process was very helpful for both of them, as it was for me. This process seemed to really help us make our arguments  more clear and concise.

While both of my peers had an easier time writing in this genre, I found that I struggled a bit with this at first. I was a bit more accustomed to writing in an informal manner when I went into this project, so I definitely had to get used to writing in an analytic tone. However, once I got back into the swing of things, I had a much easier time with this.

Project 2 Final

Project 2 is complete! You can find the final version of my essay here.

Official Navy Page, "Racers cross finish line in 5K run for Navy Chief birthday." 04/01/11 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain License.

Punctuation, Part 2

In this section, I will discuss three new topics from the "Punctuation" section of Rules for Writers. I will then relate these to my draft of Project 2.

ZIPNON, "Symbols Grammatical Marks  Punctuation Template Set." April 2015 via Pixabay.  Public Domain License.

The Semicolon

This section commented on common uses and misuses of the semicolon. I was particularly stuck by the number of applications of this punctuation mark. I had previously known of only one use, in which a semicolon is inserted between two independent clauses. However, this section showed me that there are many more uses, which, when used correctly, can positively impact one's writing. This is something I will definitely have to keep in mind when I am writing.

The Apostrophe

This section was especially useful for me, because I have always struggled with certain applications of the apostrophe. I found it particularly helpful because of its explanation about when not to use apostrophes. For instance, the section said not to used apostrophes to show the plural form of numbers (e.g., 8s), and this cleared a misconception I had had for years.

Other Punctuation Marks

This section helped me more clearly understand some of the odds and ends of punctuation. For example, I had never truly learned the proper use of the dash, and this section helped me understand the grammatical effects of such punctuation marks. I found that I use these other punctuation marks quite frequently, but hopefully I will use them more effectively now that I understand their proper use.

Reflection of Project 2 Revision

As I was revising my draft, I found several instances of proper and improper uses of these punctuation marks. This showed me that, while I felt pretty confident in my punctuation skills before, there is always room for improvement. For example, I found this sentence as I was rereading my draft:

"In this way, the author’s appeal to his audience’ beliefs, personal narratives, and credible sources really added to the persuasiveness of his writing."

This sentence demonstrates an incorrect use of an apostrophe, as "audience'" needs to be corrected to "audience's." It is possible that I used this apostrophe incorrectly because of the "s" sound at the end of "audience." However, the section on apostrophes in Rules for Writers reminded me that I should not add apostrophes merely based on what "sounds" appropriate in the sentence. 

I was also pleased to find a correct use of brackets in my writing, as demonstrated by the following sentence:

"He gives a detailed description of her credentials, explaining that 'she was recruited into the ceramic-engineering program [at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]; she stayed with it and eventually, at M.I.T., got her doctorate in ceramics science' (para. 20)."

When I first wrote this sentence, I was a little unsure about the inclusion of the brackets in this quote. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for me to include information that wasn't included in the quote in this form. However, the Rules for Writing section on punctuation reassured me that this is grammatically correct. Because of this reading, I think I will now be able to use this punctuation more confidently.

Paragraph Analysis 2

This blog post will reflect on my paragraph analysis for Project 2 by describing my paragraphs' strengths and weaknesses. My paragraph analysis can be found here.

geralt, "Problem Analysis Mark Marker Hand Solution." March 2015 via Pixabay.

This paragraph analysis helped me realize that some of my body paragraphs could use a lot more analysis. I have sufficient evidence, but I seem to sometimes include little analysis to support the evidence. The analysis that I do have relates my evidence back to the main points of each paragraph, but sometimes doesn't relate it to the entire rhetorical situation of the article as a whole. This is something that I will definitely need to revise before submitting my final project. In addition, some of my arguments are repetitive, so I will need to go back through the essay to delete unnecessary sentences.

On the other hand, I did feel like my essay was organized in a way that made sense to the reader. The thesis clearly shows exactly what I will be talking about, which allows my essay to flow naturally from there. I think the organization will definitely help me organize my ideas as I go back to my essay and add some more detailed analysis.

Revised Conclusion

In this blog post, I will write about my revised conclusion, and why I think it may be more successful than my old conclusion for this paper. The old and revised conclusions can be found here.

M1-L3C, "Conclusion." 11/27/13 via Wikimedia Commons. Attribution-Share Alike License. 

My old conclusion fell into the trap of summarizing my claims, rather than choosing one of the four approaches that are explained in the Student's Guide reading. This conclusion attempts to look forward at the future of this debate, and relates the rhetoric used to the future of the argument. I think it is more successful in that it also gets the reader interested in learning more about the topic, since it looks forward to what the future of this technology in the biomedical field is going to look like. This seems to be much more effective than merely summarizing the main claim of my paper.

Revised Introduction

In this blog post, I will explain why I think my revised introduction is more successful than my old introduction for Project 2. The old and revised introductions can be found here.

ClkerFreeVectorImages, "Text Writing Edit Documentation Grey Pencil Paper." Oct. 2012 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

I feel that my new introduction better aligns with the purpose of this project, which is to analyze the rhetorical situations and strategies of a public speech act in my field. Rather than spending the bulk of the introduction talking about 3-D printing and how it's advancing the biomedical field, I added more about the rhetoric being used in this debate. This should more clearly demonstrate to the audience what the essay will be about, while also informing them of the basic context of the paper. Also, to shorten the introduction, I deleted a lot of what I had written previously and split the introduction into two paragraphs.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In this post, I will answer a series of questions from Student's Guide in order to evaluate my peer review experience.  For this process, I peer reviewed Michael's and Bri's project 2 drafts.

Mummelgrummel, "Student writing takes many shapes in Freshman writing classes, including handwritten freewriting and notetaking." 02/08/13 via Wikipedia. Attribution Share-Alike License.

1. Do you have an identifiable thesis? Does it point to the specific rhetorical strategies that you analyze in your essay, or are you merely using vague terms like ethos, pathos, and logos?

I think my thesis is very identifiable. I spent a lot of time on it, working to make sure it was specific about exactly what rhetorical strategies I am going to talk about in my paper. I pointed to three specific strategies, rather than using the terms ethos, pathos, and logos to structure my argument.

2. How have you decided to organize your essay? Does each paragraph have a central point that is supported with evidence from the text and in-depth analysis?

I decided to organize my essay by following the layout I put forth in my thesis. I tried to make each paragraph focus on a specific rhetorical strategy, and then I provided at least one quote for evidence to back up my central point. I might need to work on adding some more analysis, however, as some of my paragraphs seem to have more evidence than analysis. Also, some of my paragraphs do have some excessive information that strays from the main point, so that's something that I will also need to revise before I submit this project.

3. Did you identify and analyze the five elements of the rhetorical situation?

This is one area that could definitely use more analysis in my essay. I briefly mentioned the author's credentials, and I made a broad generalization of who the audience might be. However, I think these could be elaborated on to strengthen my argument. In addition, I did give some context for the debate about 3-D printing occurring in the field, but I did not give much context on the article. I could fix this by adding some information about the medium the article was printed in, and how this might affect the author's argument.

4. Did you explain how and why certain rhetorical strategies were employed? Did you discuss what effects these strategies have on the intended audience and overall effectiveness of the text?

I did explain the rhetorical strategies that were used in the text, and I gave some analysis on how effective these were in the context of the audience and the overall text. I tried to focus on why the author might have chosen these particular strategies over other strategies, and I related this back to the rhetorical situation of the text. I do think this could use some more analysis, maybe by addressing more specifically how these strategies were used throughout the text.

5. Are you thoughtfully using evidence in each paragraph? Do you mention specific examples from the text and explain why they are relevant?

I did use evidence in each paragraph, mainly in the form of quotes. I think I did a good job introducing each example and relating it back to the main point of each paragraph. One suggestion I received is that it might be helpful to include paraphrases as well as direct quotations, just so that my paragraphs aren't overwhelmed with quotations. This is a piece of advice that I might find useful as I am revising my essay.

6. Do you leave your reader wanting more? Do you answer the "so what" question in your conclusion?

My conclusion was more of a summary of my main points, rather than a statement of why the paper matters. I might want to add some type of "so what" statement at the end, just to show that this conversation is relevant outside of my paper.

Punctuation, Part 1

In this post, I will reflect on what I learned from reading the Rules for Writers section on Punctuation. In particular, I will write about the following sections: "The Comma," "Unnecessary Commas," and "Quotation Marks."

McClure, Darin, "Punctuation Saves Lives!" 09/30/11 via Flickr. Attribution License.

 The Comma

This section commented on the many uses of the comma in writing. I was particularly surprised by how many different uses of the comma there are. I often use the comma without realizing it, but knowing exactly how to use it could potentially improve my writing. For instance, I never paid much attention to which phrases are restrictive and nonrestrictive, but now that I have read this section I will be able to more easily identify them and use the proper punctuation for these phrases.

Unnecessary Commas

This section was especially useful for me because I often find myself using commas when it "feels" right, rather than when it's grammatically correct. For example, this section warns against using a comma between "compound elements that are not independent clauses," and this is something that I have definitely done on more than one occasion. Learning these rules will be very helpful for any future writing I do.

Quotation Marks

This section focused on appropriate and inappropriate uses of quotation marks. I found the section that explained how to use punctuation with quotation marks especially useful, because I often have trouble deciding where the end punctuation or introductory punctuation should go when I am using quotes. This section clarified this for me, so I will now be able to use quotes in my writing more effectively.

Reflection

After reading Michael's and Bri's essays, I got a better understanding of just how important the punctuation is in one's writing. Because I was paying special attention to the use of commas and quotation marks in their essays, I was able to see that the use of these devices can drastically change what someone is trying to convey through their writing.

For example, I found this sentence in Michael's writing, which demonstrates the effect of having an unnecessary comma:

"Barro uses many numerical statistics in his article, as it does concern tax rates, tax cuts, and other plans concerning capital, or monetary resources."

The last comma is unnecessary and can contribute to some confusion, just because there are already so many commas in the sentence. The removal of this comma would clarify what he is trying to say here.

I found another example in Bri's writing, which demonstrates the effects of incorrectly using quotation marks:

"In the article, The Minimum Wage: How Much is too Much, Alan B. Krueger addresses the controversy of how high the minimum wage should be increased."

The the title of this article should be in quotation marks, since it is a shorter piece of writing. This could also contribute to some confusion for the audience, since they will want to know exactly which article the paper is about, and this could hinder their understanding of that. This again shows that punctuation can play a huge role in one's writing.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

In this post, I will share a draft of my rhetorical analysis for Project 2.

QuotesEverlasting, "'Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men'-Plato." 08/02/13 via Flickr. Attribution License.

This essay definitely needs a lot of editing, so please don't be afraid to comment on some things I can approve! I am especially worried that I'm repetitive throughout the paper, so please pay special attention to that. In addition, I could probably use some more analysis on some of my points, so I would really appreciate it if you're able to point out some areas that need more development. Thanks for reading!

A draft of my essay for Project 2 can be found here.

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In this post, I will practice summarizing and paraphrasing my text using a quote from the article I am analyzing.

Paley, Nina, "Thief." 07/30/10 via Wikimedia Commons. Attribution Share Alike License. 

Original Source

"For her part, Lewis is passionate about the changes that 3-D printing could bring to the pharmaceutical industry. Billions of dollars each year are spent on drug development that fails. If bioprinted tissues were readily available, experimental drugs could be tested on them to see how the drugs are metabolized and what side effects result." 

My Paraphrase of Original Source

In "Print Thyself," Groopman communicates Jennifer Lewis's opinion regarding the usefulness of 3-D printing in medicine. He writes that Lewis believes that this technology could be especially transformative in the pharmaceutical industry, in which a significant amount of money is spent on developing drugs. However, by using 3-D printing to print tissues, we could test these drugs on this printed tissue and evaluate their effectiveness. 

My Summary of the Original Source 

In this section of his article, Groopman demonstrates that 3-D printing could help save a significant amount of money in the pharmaceutical industry by providing printed tissues to test drugs on.

Project 2 Outline

In this blog post, I will give a general outline for my paper for Project 2. This outline uses chapter 7 of Writing Public Lives as a guide to develop my ideas.

desenheroulquiorra, "Draw Sketch Design Outline Designer Paper Hand." May 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

"Sections of the Paper" in Writing Public Lives helped me understand the format and content of this type of rhetorical analysis a little better. The general outline of this essay, as described by this reading, is similar to that of other essays I have written in that there is a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. However, the content of this essay is a bit different from other essays. One thing that really struck me was the fact that no two essays of the type will be the same, and thus each essay is going to be organized a little differently. For instance, the author of this section explains the role of the introduction by writing, "Instead of looking for one single way of introducing your analysis, it is more important to shape your introduction in a way that helps you achieve the goal or purpose of your analysis" (122). This really helped me understand that, as long as I have an analytical claim that I can back with evidence, the content of my essay really depends on what I feel is important to focus on. This holds true for the body of this essay too, since it will be more effective  to focus on a couple rhetorical strategies and provide ample evidence, rather than try to touch on every rhetorical strategy that is used. Finally, the conclusion should give the implications of my analysis, and explain why my analysis proves that the text is persuasive or not persuasive.

1. Introduction

In the introduction paragraph, I plan to give some background regarding the debate about 3-D printing in the medical field. This background will give a summary of both sides of the debate. I will then introduce the author of this essay, and explain his viewpoint on the issue. This contextual information will then be followed by the thesis statement.

2. Thesis Statement

My thesis statement is still being developed and edited, but the main point I want to argue is that the ethical and logical appeals the author of this article uses effectively persuade the audience. The thesis will look something like this:

In Jerome Groopman's article "Print Thyself," the author persuades his audience of the benefits of 3-D printing in medicine by using a series of personal narratives, referencing credible sources, and appealing to the audience's beliefs about the importance of scientific innovation. By predominantly using these ethical and logical appeals, Groopman effectively communicates his opinions regarding the subject, and persuades the audience of the legitimacy of this viewpoint.

Main Claim

As stated in my thesis statement, my main claim is that the author successfully utilizes a few ethical and logical rhetorical strategies to persuade this primarily scientific audience that 3-D printing is an essential tool in the field of medicine. This claim will be supported by the following body paragraphs.

3. Body Paragraphs

Body Paragraph 1: Audience

• Who is the audience?
• What does this audience believe?
• How the author appeals to this audience: Use example of keywords (challenge, achievement, etc.)
• This adds to the article's ethical appeal, especially due to the nature of the audience.

Body Paragraph 2: Personal narratives

• Point: Personal narratives add to the ethical appeal of this article
• Examples: Choose detailed examples and quote from the text. These examples should directly support the author's argument.
• This rhetorical strategy makes the author's point seem to be both ethical and logical, thus adding to the persuasiveness of the author's article.

Body paragraph 3: Credible Sources

• Point: The references to credible sources add to the ethical appeal of this text, and make the author's opinion more persuasive.
• Examples: These example should directly support the aforementioned point. I might choose to quote Jennifer Lewis, an expert in the field directly. Also, I might mention the author as a credible source, since he also uses his own research as evidence.
• This rhetorical strategy makes the author's point seem more legitimate, especially since this particular audience is more likely to be swayed by credible arguments.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, the use of the aforementioned strategies are successful in persuading this particular audience of the author's point. I might use this paragraph to comment on things lacking from the author's argument (or do this in a separate paragraph prior to the conclusion). This could lead to a "so what" statement that comments on the importance of the rhetorical situation in determining the usefulness of particular rhetorical strategies. For instance, I might answer the question: How might the persuasiveness of this article change if the audience was not primarily composed of individuals of the scientific community?

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Evan's and Victoria's outlines. Both of their outlines are looking pretty good, and it was good to see that we all basically have the same format for our essay. However, I did learn that I have to draw a line between including too much information in my essay, and not enough information. There were parts of the outlines that I thought could use more information, simply because I am not familiar with the topics that my classmates are analyzing. On the other hand, there were other parts that were so well-developed that it seemed like it would be hard to fit all of that information into a 4-5 page essay. The amount of information to include in this analysis will definitely be a bit tricky for me, so I will have to pay special attention to that.

Draft Thesis Statements

In this blog post, I will share some thesis statements that I have come up with for this project. I will reflect on these statements to share my thoughts on writing the rest of this paper.

Juhko, "Writing." 07/30/09 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain License.

Thesis Statement #1

In his article "Print Thyself," Jerome Groopman uses personal stories and references to credible sources to appeal to his audience's beliefs about the value of progress and scientific innovation. By relying heavily on such ethical appeals, Groopman effectively persuades his audience of the value of 3-D printing in the medical field.

Thoughts: I think this thesis statement effectively lays out what the rest of my essay will be about in the first sentence. The second sentence is meant to voice my argument/claim for the rest of this essay regarding the author's rhetorical strategies. I like this statement because it is relatively short, but I am a little worried that it is not specific enough.

Thesis Statement #2

In Jerome Groopman's article "Print Thyself," the author persuades his audience of the benefits of 3-D printing in medicine by using a series of personal narratives, referencing credible sources, and appealing to the audience's beliefs about the importance of scientific innovation. By predominantly using these ethical and logical appeals, Groopman effectively communicates his opinions regarding the subject, and persuades the audience of the legitimacy of this viewpoint.

Thoughts: This statement uses a similar layout as my first thesis statement, but it uses different wording and adds some specificity. While it is more detailed than the first statement, this statement could potentially be too wordy and confusing.

Overall Thoughts

These thesis statements helped me narrow my focus to about three main strategies that I want to focus on in this essay. This will prove to help me as I set out to write my essay, since I now have a basic layout and argument in mind. However, it will still be a little difficult to find appropriate examples that support my claim, so I will have to pay special attention to this as I continue working on Project 2.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Chloe's and Andrea's drafts of thesis statements. I thought both of their thesis statements were off to a good start, and each of them had different strengths and weaknesses.

I really like how Chloe wrote two for each opposing side of her debate. I think this is really effective in deciding which side she might want to argue for in terms of the rhetorical arguments. While she didn't give many specific details on how the rest of her paper might look, I definitely think she's off to a good start.

Andrea's thesis statements were well-developed and very specific, which I think is really important for this project. I do think she could add some information about how effective the rhetorical strategies are in her text, but overall it looks like she's off to a good start as well.

These posts helped me realize that it's important to both specify which rhetorical strategies you're going to use in your essay and also make some type of claim regarding these strategies. After reading some of these thesis statements, I feel like I am on the right track with my own thesis statements, even though they could definitely use some editing as well.

Analyzing My Audience

In this post, I will answer six questions regarding my audience for Project 2. These questions can be found on page 41 of Student's Guide.

Splintercellguy, "Audience Frontier Fiesta, 1950s,  Audience at a Frontier Fiesta Show." n.d. via Wikipedia. Public Domain License.

1. Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs or assumptions?

I am writing for new and incoming students in the biomedical engineering department. These students will, for the most part, have a strong belief in the value of scientific progress, especially as it relates to biotechnology. They might hold the assumption that any advance in the field is for the betterment of the field and society.

2. What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

This audience might take the position in favor of 3-D printing for advancements in the medical field, due to their interest in the biomedical field. I will need to respond to this position by remaining as unbiased as possible throughout my essay. This project's main goal is to analyze the rhetorical strategies and situations of the article I have chosen, not necessarily to judge the validity of the author's opinion. Because of this, I will have to maintain that primary focus throughout this project.

3. What will they want to know?

Since my audience consists of new students who might not be well-informed of this topic, I will have to provide some context of this debate. They will probably want to know the two main sides of this debate, as well as some context on what 3-D printing does in the medical field. In addition, I will have to provide some background on the author and what rhetorical strategies/situations I am analyzing.

4. How might they react to my argument?

The audience might react to my argument regarding rhetorical strategies and situations with a fair degree of confusion, since they are relatively new to analyzing public arguments in this discipline. They might also respond with some interest in the topic at hand, since the debate that this article addresses is very pertinent to the biomedical field at the moment.

5. How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

As someone who is in the same discipline as my audience, I am trying to relate to them on a disciplinary level. Because we share common interests, I am connecting with the audience based on these interests. I am also of a similar age as them, so this might also help me relate to this audience.

6. Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

Since we share disciplinary interests, using key words that relate to the biomedical field might help me relate to the audience, and raise their interest in the topic. In addition, using fairly straight forward diction that is not excessively scientific might help me relate to this audience's position. Since the audience consists of new students, unscientific diction might help me communicate my ideas more effectively.

Reflection

After reading Alex's and Andrea's posts, I feel that I have gained more insight on what my audience might expect from my essay. Alex's topic was similar to my own in that he is also writing about the medical field. His post reminded me that it's important for us to assume that our audience has some knowledge about the field, but not extensively so. Because of this, I will have to adjust my writing accordingly.

Andrea's post was interesting because her audience's opinions could lie on either side of her debate. I think this is a good assumption to use with my writing as well, since this might help my writing be as unbiased as possible.

Overall, I think my post was well-developed and thoroughly analyzed my audience's position for this project.

Cluster of "Print Thyself"

In this blog post, you will find a link to a cluster for the article I have chosen for this project, "Print Thyself." The cluster has four main branches: rhetorical strategies, rhetorical situations, cultural values/ideologies, and message. These branches further separate to show individual categories and evidence within each branch, which collectively represent the rhetorical strategies and situations of this text.

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot from my computer." 10/06/15 via Coggle.

The cluster of "Print Thyself" can be found here.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Print Thyself"

In this post, I will analyze this text's appeals to credibility, emotion, and logic. I will identify the instances of these rhetorical strategies and analyze the effectiveness of these strategies.

Jordan, Brett, "Rhetorical (1 of 2)." 07/08/11 via Flickr. Attribution License.

Appeals to Credibility or Character

1. Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Credibility and Character (Ethos)" on page 182 can you recognize in your text?

• Personal stories: The author uses several personal stories, either from his own experience or from other experts' experiences, to show the usefulness of 3-D printing technology in medicine. For instance, the author writes, "In my lab, for example, I study endothelial cells, which line the insides of our veins, arteries, and capillaries" (para. 14). The author goes on to write about how 3-D printing is applicable in his own field, thus giving a personal story to add to his credibility.
• References to credible sources: The author references credible sources such as Jennifer Lewis, a materials scientist at Harvard.
• Word choice: The author uses just enough formal and scientific diction to make him seem informed about the topic. For example, he writes, "Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a single, shape-altering gene mutation" (para. 15). 
• Author's public image: The author is a reputable medical writer and researcher, and he uses his reputation and expertise to add to his credibility.  
• Information about author's expertise: The author cites his own research in the text. 
• Appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience: The author alludes to a shared desire for treatment and progress within the medical field. 

2. How and why would the author(s) use these strategies?

The author might use these strategies to appeal to the audience's esteem for authority. By establishing himself as an authoritative figure, and by citing other well-respected individuals in the field, the audience might be more prone to listen and be persuaded by what the author has to say.

3. How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author's/authors' credibility and character?

These strategies cause the audience to perceive the author as a more credible, well informed individual. His use of credible argumentative strategies make him seem to be a reputable individual who is worth listening to throughout the article.

4. How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message?

The use of these strategies strengthens the overall message of the text. By building the author's credibility, the argument seems to be more credible. This causes the overall message and purpose of the text to appear strong and well-supported.

5. Does/do the author(s) seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?

The author does seem to be biased in favor of this medical technology, and this could undermine his credibility. He seems to hold the assumption that 3-D printing can only advance and better the medical field, and he does not even address the opposing ethical and safety concerns that accompany the use of this technology.

Appeals to Emotion

1. Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)" on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text?

• Personal stories or other emotionally compelling narratives: The author uses a series of narratives that are often personal and emotionally appealing. For instance, the author begins the article by speaking of "an unusual operation on a three-month-old boy" (para. 1). This narrative is emotionally compelling and personal, so it appeals to the audience's emotions.
• Repetition of key words: The author does repeat words such as "challenge" and "achievement" periodically throughout the text.

2. What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?

By using these appeals to emotion, the author attempts to create an emotional response in favor of the 3-D printing technology used in medicine. While the author does not use a lot of pathos, the emotional anecdotes he tells are meant to sway the audience's opinions.

3. What is the actual result?

The author does cause the audience to empathize with the anecdotes he tells to a certain extent. However, these narratives, while they are compelling, are perhaps not as emotional as he intended them to be. They do not have a powerful emotional impact, causing the emotional appeal to not be very compelling.

4. Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

These emotions are effective to a certain extent. They do make the text more personally appealing, which could help the audience empathize with the topic more. However, the audience most likely consists of people who are scientifically inclined, either because they work in the field or they are interested in it. Because of this, the emotions might only be effective to some extent, as this audience might be looking for more of a factually based argument.

5. How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author(s) or the logic of the text?

These emotional appeals might, if anything, decrease the credibility of the author in this context. It makes it seem as though the author has to use appeals to emotion in place of a factual argument, and this might be looked down upon by this particular audience. However, because the emotional appeals aren't used too often, it does not affect the logic of the text too much.

Appeals to Logic

1. Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Logic or Rational Decision Making (Logos)" on page 183 can you recognize in your text?

• Historical records: The author makes some references to the history of this technology, and this might be used as an appeal to logic. For instance, he writes, "The first microscopes were invented in the sixteenth century, around the time of the invention of the telescope."
• Interviews or expert opinions: The author does cite several experts' opinions, such as that of Jennifer Lewis, a materials scientist at Harvard. 
• Effective organization of sentences, paragraphs, ideas, images, etc.: The author's ideas seem to logically lead to one another, which increases the organization of the text.
• Clear transitions between sections of text: While the author doesn't use subheadings, he subtly changes the font of the first letter of the first word of each section. This hints that a new section is beginning, and aids the transition between sections of text.

2. What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?

The author is attempting appeal to the rational sides of his audience. By using these strategies, he is trying to demonstrate that the use of 3-D technology logically makes sense in the field of medicine.

3. What is the actual result?

The author is mostly successful in using these strategies, since his evidence seems to show that this technology is logical. The only aspect of his logical appeal that might undermine his argument is that he does not offer any statistics to support his opinion. Rather, he cites case studies, which, while effective, might not be as effective as the use of statistics.

4 Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

These strategies are effective for this audience, since the audience is again composed of people who are interested in the field or science and medicine, or are a part of it. These types of people are often affected by appeals to logic, so these strategies are effective in this case.

Reflection

After reading Evan's and Chelsea's posts, I feel that I was able to reflect on my own analysis more clearly. Evan briefly touched on each of the rhetorical strategies, but I would have been interested in some more specific examples of how his text used these strategies. Chelsea's analysis was very well developed, and it sounds like she gave each of the strategies a lot of thought. It was interesting to see that her text seemed to use each strategy equally.

Overall, I feel that my own analysis was relatively well developed. It might have been beneficial for me to go into more detail on how useful and effective each strategy was, so this is something I will keep in mind as I continue to work on this project.