Reflections on Open Letter Draft

In this post, I will reflect on the peer editing I received on my open letter draft.

Rostad, Bernt. "Reed Flute Cave-Reflecting Pool." 07/19/2009 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

For the peer review, I reviewed Michael and Mira's drafts.

1. Did you demonstrate an ability to think about your writing and yourself as a writer?

• I do feel that I demonstrated an ability to think about my writing, and myself as a writer. I feel that I've expanded my types-of-writing palette, as we wrote in genres I had never heard about before, so I got to explore new areas. My writing progressed, as well, because of all the process work that is required. I had never actually planned out my writing before, it usually stayed as a write-as-you-go draft. 

2. Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments, or concepts you've learned?

• I think I did, as I mentioned the many genres I had never written in before, and how much of the process work was completely new to me. I sufficiently explained how I've grown throughout the semester and that semi-served as an analysis. 

3. Did your provide concrete examples from your own writing?

• I did provide concrete examples from my own writing. I referenced a few of my blog posts, and explained how I've changed from the beginning of the year to now. I might add a lot of quotations from my own past work and final projects to help support some of the things I talk about.

4. Did you explain why you made certain choices and whether those choices were effective?

• I did, and I can use my past explanations in blog posts to help build the argument behind my claims. I can touch a bit more on their effectiveness, though. The last project was definitely most difficult, not only to explain, but to achieve successfully. 

5. Did you use specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process?

• I did use specific writing terms, and 'revision' was one of the most used because not only was it new to me, but it required the most work. I don't think I've ever put so much work into something. 

Draft of Open Letter

In this post, I will construct a draft of Project 4. Here is the link to it.

Wiertz, Sebastien. "Drafting." 03/04/2012 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

So, this rough draft is very, very rough, and I would really appreciate any feedback you have. In fact, the more things you would like to edit, the better. I am planning on editing a lot before I actually write the final, but anything is super helpful. Please disregard the bad writing, and give me your hones thoughts. This is just to get my main ideas down. Thanks!

Reflecting More on my Writing Experiences

In this post, I will reflect on my writing experiences.

Downing, Jenny. "bubble." 05/17/2012 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

1. What were the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?

• Firstly, I am very much a procrastinator, so I was worried that those traits would get in the way of my success. However, I think I managed to achieve a good amount of productivity within the semester with these habits and am quite pleased with myself. Also, having no background in the many types of writing was a difficulty. I was used to writing purely academic essays and learning the QRG genre was my favorite. 

2. What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?

• My time management skills definitely need some work, because I always found myself in a rush to get many things done, and I reached maximum stress levels many times. My writing skills are pretty decent, I think, so I am happy with them. They probably grew a bit with the many contexts we wrote in. My editorial skills definitely grew, as I was looking to change individual things every time I edited, and that was a great skill to have. 

3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.

• Writing in many genres has taught me to be aware of many different styles and types of contexts. A genre is like a set form of writing, with specific characteristics and formats. It includes unique images uses, tone uses, rhetorical strategies, etc. This is absolutely essential to being an effective writer, and I will use the skills I learned in this class for future use. 

4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?

• I will use the skills I learned in this class for my future science writing. The research aspect of this class was very useful in helping me develop what kinds of resources are truly credible and which are not, as well as help me choose what information is crucial and will help my build my argument. I want this skill to grow, so I can better grades on my lab reports. 

5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H?

• My most effective moment(s) in this class were whenever I had to write my final drafts. My rough drafts were always pretty rough, but I did really try on the finals, and I was always pleased by the end of the project. I really enjoyed the different aspects of every project that I had to conform to, because it was challenging and helped me adapt my skills as a writer. 

6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H?

• My least effective moment in this class was the week that I published four posts a day late. It had been a pretty busy week and I was very tired, so I fell asleep the night before on my laptop, even though I was trying to finish the weeks blog posts in a few hours. It made me realize that I needed to pull myself together, and I haven't turned in anything late since. 

Revisiting my Writing Process

In this post, I will reflect on my writing process.

Brown, Elliot. "Minterne Gardens - sign - Thank you for visiting." 04/30/2012 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

In Blog Post 1.10, I was feeling hopeful about how the semester would go. I actually thought that I would get through the semester without resorting to my old ways and being a procrastinator, and I think that was good of me to hope for. Unfortunately, that did not occur and I am still a very bad procrastinator. It's a miracle how I've managed to complete all the deadlines (save for one) on time! It's a difficult thing to change a habit that you have spent years perfecting, and I didn't expect to do a complete 180, but I did expect to at least change a few aspects about my procrastination.

Looking back on blog post 1.12, I now realize how positive my outlook on the semester was. I didn't think about napping or wasting time that often, and for the first month of school, I stayed on track. Then, stress really began setting in, and the amount of time wasted had increased exponentially throughout the semester. I thought I had the strength to stay focused, and in some aspects, I am, but overall, my effort in school is decreasing and stress increases. I'm just holding on for the last two weeks.

My process and time management habits still reflect those of a procrastinator, and I feel that it will always be this way. I honestly do try to do homework ahead of time, but it never works out and I always tell myself that I still have time to do it later. I also signed up for a lot more stuff towards the end of semester, so that also impacted my level of productivity. I think I'll be fine in the next few years of college coursework, because I'll be taking science classes, and won't have to do a lot of analytical writing. Looking for employment in the science field does not usually require a heavy normal/analytical science background, and I don't think getting a job will either. I'll mostly be sticking to science writing.

Reflection on Project 3

In this post, I will reflect on Project 3.

Overton, Stephanie. "Reflect." 08/23/2013 via Flickr. Attribution No-derivs 2.0 License. 

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

• I changed a lot from my draft to my final copy. I basically reconstructed my argument so that it established a better pro argument. I also built up my rhetorical strategies a lot. My draft needed a lot of work, so everything I added or changed made it stronger, and more substantial. My rough draft needed a lot of opinion to establish its stance, and I think I established that well. 

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

• I reconsidered my organization because I wanted it to flow better and also together, so I added sub-titles. This organized it into specific sections where I could keep a topic relevant rather than stretching it out over the whole piece of writing. I also reconsidered my thesis by making my argument more of a pro rather than a neutral by adding tons of opinion. 

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

• These changes came from both my personal opinion on how bad my rough draft was, but also the peer review process. A large part of my revisions also came from a shift in purpose. My rough draft didn't honestly have an argument or direction, but I majorly changed that as I edited, and established a pro argument. 

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

• These changes make me a stronger author, because I am able to revise my work when I know I need it and not be stuck in my ways when it comes to writing. I'm open to change to improve my work, and that should be part of every author's set of skills. 

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

• The changes will better address the audience because the organization changes make the blog more accessible to them, while the change/addition in position makes it easier for them to understand the purpose and agree with it. All the changes made should make it easier for them to understand my writing and make it better for them to absorb.

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

• I reconsidered sentence structure and style by making it shorter and more simple to fit the genre I was writing in. There is still a level of formality, but it is more informative and laid back rather super strict academic writing. The changes done for these purposes make it easier for my audience to read my piece of writing. 

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

• These changes will assist my audience in understanding my purpose by making it more accessible to them, and more comprehensible. If I had long, run-on sentences, no one would want to read it because it would be long and too complex. By keeping my sentences shorter, it is easier for them to absorb the information and my purpose comes across more solid.

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

• I did not have to reconsider the particular conventions of the genre in which I am writing. I had a few images, just like regular TechCrunch articles contain, and many short paragraphs, which is another characteristic of TechCrunch articles. I am pretty well-versed in the blogging style, after publishing so many of them. I did end up adding a bit of space, but it was a minor change.

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

• The reflection process helped me reevaluate what type of writer I am. I tend to make the rough draft really bad, and then make a ton of changes so that the final draft is completely revamped. Reflecting on this helps me see what I should and should not do for future pieces of writing, and helps me become aware in both peer review and self-analysis of writing in general. 

Publishing Public Argument

In the following post, I will discuss some aspects of my public argument. Here is a link to my public argument.

MacEntee, Sean. "publish." 03/09/2010 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. Mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue (before reading/watcing/hearing your argument) below:

←----------------------------------------------------x--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

2. Now mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience should be (after they've read/watched/heard your argument) below:

←--------------------x--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

3. Check one (and only one) of the argument types below for your public argument:

         ___x___ My public argument etablishes an original pro position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument establishes an original con position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument clarifies the causes for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument prooposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument positively evaluate a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm supporting).

         _______ My public argument openly refutes a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm refuting).

4. Briefly explain how your public argument doesn’t simply restate information from other sources, but provides original context and insight into the situation:

My goal in this argument was to really stress the good that the continuation of this research could do, and very briefly shoot down the opposition (in a small paragraph). I haven't seen any articles that explicitly only state the good that human genome editing can do without going off on a whole argument about the possible dangers. All the supporters of the research also have to acknowledge its dangers. By not taking up half of my blog post with the dangers, my work contains original context and insight into the situation. 

5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed in your public argument below:

Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that establish a credible point-of-view

                    __x___ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)

                    __x___ Employing carefully chosen key words or phrases that demonstrate you are credible (proper terminology, strong but clear vocabulary, etc.)

                    _____ Adopting a tone that is inviting and trustworthy rather than distancing or alienating

                    __x___ Arranging visual elements properly (not employing watermarked images, cropping images carefully, avoiding sloppy presentation)

                    _____ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate images of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)

                    _____ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)

                    __x___ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently

                    __x___ Appealing openly to the values and beliefs shared by the audience (remember that the website/platform/YouTube channel your argument is designed for helps determine the kind of audience who will encounter your piece)

                    _____ Other: 

Emotional appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Telling emotionally compelling narratives drawn from history and/or the current culture

                    __x__ Employing the repetition of key words or phrases that create an appropriate emotional impact

                    __x___ Employing an appropriate level of formality for the subject matter (through appearance, formatting, style of language, etc.)

                    _____ Appropriate use of humor for subject matter, platform/website, audience

                    __x___ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point

                    _____ Use of imagery to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Employing an attractive color palette that sets an appropriate emotional tone (no clashing or ‘ugly’ colors, no overuse of too many variant colors, etc.)

                    _____ Use of music to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Use of sound effects to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    ____ Employing an engaging and appropriate tone of voice for the debate

                    _____ Other: 

Logical or rational appeals

                    _____ Using historical records from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    _____ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    __x__ Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position

                    __x__ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position

                    __x__ Effective organization of elements, images, text, etc.

                    _____ Clear transitions between different sections of the argument (by using title cards, interstitial music, voiceover, etc.)

                    _____ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments

                    _____ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument

                    _____ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)

                    _____ Other: 

6. Three links to my genre style:
a) Example 1
b) Example 2
c) Example 3

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

In this post, I will reflect on the project 3 draft peer review assignment.

Hampel, Matt. "EDIT>". 10/04/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

I peer reviewed Mira and Swati's Project 3 Drafts.

• Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft?
• Swati and Chloe reviewed my Project 3 Draft.
• What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received? Be explicit and clear. Tell me what helped or what confused you about the feedback you got.
• The feedback was helpful and accurate. This week, I was more focused on getting things written rather than forming an opinion, so I will definitely be adding a lot to my draft before I turn it in. A lot of the feedback addressed the things I felt about my own writing, so it was nice to see that other people felt the same. It all helped, anyway, and gave some specific things to fix. 
• What aspects of Project 3 need to most work going forward [Audience, Purpose, Argumentation, or Genre? How do you plan on addressing these areas? 
• I plan to do a lot of editing on everything before I turn in a final copy. I am most concerned about changing my writing to reflect my position on the subject of research, which I am in support of. I think the remaining components will fall into place when I do that, so I am less concerned about the other aspects. 
• How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?
• I feel good. Most of the feedback I received was well-deserved, and I think the final copy will be great. I have a lot of editing to do, but I was expecting that coming into this deadline. 

Draft of Public Argument

In this post, I will publish a draft of my Public Argument. Here is a link to it.

Joseph Glorioso Photography. "Draft Ball Porter." 06/27/2013 via Flickr.
Attribution No-Derivs 2.0 Generic License.

Considering Visual Elements

In this post, I will consider the visual elements of the genre I will be writing in for my Public Argument.

Vector open stock. "Visual artists elements." 07/07/2014 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Visual Coherence:

• If my project uses graphics - such as Smart Art in Microsoft Word - are these graphics appropriate to the visual-rhetorical tone of my project? 
• I would include an image that relates to the argument in order to grab my readers' attention. I would avoid images that are too distracting and not related to my topic.
• How might I vary the fonts used in my project for emphasis, such as in the title and body of my project?
• I do not plan on varying my fonts for emphasis because I do not want different fonts to be distracting for readers. I will change font size for emphasis, but not style. 
• Do the headings for different sections of my argument stand out and break the text up clearly?
• I plan on making my headings stand out by increasing the font size. I will make it clear where a new section begins with this approach. 

Visual Salience:

• If the image is a graph or chart, does it clearly support a major point of my argument, or is it superfluous?
• Graphical data provides a better representation of my claim and will support my argument. I think proper usage of charts can be beneficial to my readers to help clarify certain aspects of my claim. 
• Does the image inform or emphasize my argument in an important way, or does it seem superficial or unrelated to my argument?
• My goal is to include images that relate directly to my argument and still grab the attention of my readers. I do not want to appeal to emotion, but instead want to intrigue my readers with the images. 

Visual Impact: 

• Looking back at your images, are they placed or sequenced in the most persuasive way?
• I think that the images will be sequenced in the most persuasive way as long as I do not stray from my argument with the images. When I am explaining a topic, the image should represent it. Avoiding images that are distracting or unrelated will keep the sequence of my images persuasive.

Project 3 Outline

In this post, I will outline my article for Project 3.

Intro: I believe that the "Connect the Issue to your Audience's World View" method is the best for my argument. I feel that I can persuade my audience that the benefits of human genome editing outweigh the possible consequences. There are so many opportunities that this type of research can discover. This type of intro will connect to the audience's value for improvement in the world and will relat to their world view through that value.

Body Paragraphs:

• Major Supporting Argument
• Continuation of this research could lead to a method of curing many diseases
• Continuation of this research could lead to a better understanding of human DNA and answer many questions that have yet to be answered regarding life and human evolution
• Major Criticisms
• It is unethical to conduct such research on humans, especially embryos, when we don't know what the consequences of such a thing are
• Technology is not developed enough for human testing, therefore further investigation is required and repercussions need to be studied as to help predict the potential harm that this could do to the human species
• Key Support
• This research could lead to potential cures for many incurable diseases. Editing the source of a disease or editing your genome to build/regain the ability to fight the disease or eradicate it altogether would save so many lives
• Understanding the human genome would answer many questions about how the human body does DNA, why it works the way it does, and basically give us a better understanding, especially because I'm going into science.
• Key Rebuttals
• This research is not safe to test on human tissue, even though the human embryos used in this particular experiment weren't viable anyway
• It's not ethical to perform these kinds experiments on anyone or anything human because it could lead to unpredictable consequences of natural human evolution
• Topic Sentences for Support 
• The continuation of this research is essential to discovering a possible cure for many diseases.
• The research being conducted will give us some insight on how the human species is affected by changes in DNA.
• Topic Sentences for Rebuttals
• This research is harmful and the consequences of human genome editing are unknown, making it even more dangerous.
• The ethics of this issue play an important role in the continuation of this research, and there needs to be limits set.
• Evidence
• Topic 1: "[This research] changes our biological blueprint and is a defining technology for the future of humanity...the benefits are going to be tremendous and they are going to happen in our lifetime." Woodrow Wilson Center Interview, Eleonore Pauwels
• Topic 2: "They hope to use it one day for what they genome surgery, replacing faulty genes in people, opening new possibilities for treating and eventually curing disease...right now, they are targeting single-gene disorders and genetic disorders arising in blood cells." Woodrow Wilson Center Interview, Eleonore Pauwels
• Rebuttal 1: "Their data reinforces the wisdom of the calls for a moratorium on any clinical practice of embryo gene editing, because current methods are too inefficient and unsafe." NPR, George Daley
• Rebuttal 2: "No researcher should have the moral warrant the globally widespread policy agreement against modifying the human germline...there are enormous safety risks that any such attempt would entail...the social dangers of creating genetically modified human beings cannot be overstated." NPR, Marcy Dornovsky
• Map of Argument
• Below, my coggle for the layout of my argument is shown.

Macklin-Isquierdo, Sam. "Screenshot of my Coggle." 11/7/2015.

Conclusion: I believe that the "Positive Consequences" approach is the best for my public argument. I am able to discuss the good that can come from the continuation of this research and I want to persuade the reader to take action. The benefits of people taking action and supporting the continuation of this research and badgering their lawmakers to do the same will have a dramatic effect on the direction of this argument.

Reflection

Mira: Considering Visual Elements
Project 3 Outline

Victoria: Considering Visual Elements
Project 3 Outline

After reading Mira and Victoria's blog posts, I feel better about both of my posts. Both Mira and Victoria know exactly how they are going to present their arguments and I'm still a little iffy, but I feel that as I begin writing, I will feel better about it. Victoria's topic is stem cells and the controversy around that, so it was nice to read her outline and see where she's taking the argument, it will help me build mine and I'll be able to compare the two.

Analyzing My Genre

In this post, I will answer questions on my genre for Project 3.

Stavelin, Eirik. "Lo-tech analyse." 03/29/2009 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Five examples of my genre:

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3
• Example 4
• Example 5

Social Context

• Where is the genre (science blogs) typically set?
• The genre is typically set in online technology and innovative science news websites, such as TechCrunch or Mashable. The target audience is about 18 to 40 year old individuals who are either scholars or informed citizens. 
• What is the subject of the genre?
• The subject of the genre is science and technological advancements. Depending on the blog, opinions on current events in science and technology could be posted. 
• Who uses the genre?
• The target audience for my genre is 18 to 40 year olds. 
• When and why is the genre used? What purposes does the genre serve for the people who use it?
• This genre is usually used by the target audience to stay informed or to learn new things about what is going in the ever-advancing science and technology world.

Rhetorical Patterns of the Genre

• What type of context is usually included and excluded?
• Typically, background information regarding the topic at hand is included in the posts. Authors tend to assume that readers are not familiar with the topic and provide contextual information for better understanding. Opinions on the topic are generally excluded, as the posts are mainly focused on presenting both sides of an issue. 
• What type of rhetorical appeals are used most often? Do you notice any patterns in the appeals to logos, pathos and ethos?
• More than anything else, the texts appeal to logos and ethos. Since the topic is scientific and technological advancements, it is much more focused on logic and reason than emotion. Ethos is used to provide credibility for the authors of the posts. 
• How are the texts organized? Do they generally open in similar ways? Conclude in similar ways? What common parts do the samples share?
• Generally, the texts open with background information on the topic being discussed. The topic is furthermore explained throughout the post and current advancements are brought to light. The posts all focus on presenting both sides of an issue if there is one, and conclude with a summary of the pros and cons of certain technologies. 
• Do sentences in the genre share a certain style? Are they mostly active, passive, simple, or complex? Is there an abundance or lack of questions, exclamation points, or semicolons?
• The sentences in this genre tend to be more complex since they are dealing with a topic that has more technical language. The writing is mostly active because it covers topics that are relevant in today's society. There seems to be a lack of questions and exclamation points, and majority of the sentences are declarative. 
• What type of word choice is used? Do many of the words fit in a particular category of jargon or slang? Is the overall effect of the word choice formal, informal, humorous, or academic?
• The word choice in this genre is slightly informal. Academic language is used when discussing the technical aspects of the posts, for example, when a certain technology is being explained. 

What the Patterns Reveal about the Social Context of the Genre

• Who does the genre include and who does it exclude?
• This genre includes people of a large age range who are interested in scientific and technological advancements. People who are not specifically interested in learning about such topics are generally excluded.
• What roles for writers and readers does the genre encourage?
• This genre encourages readers to learn about different types of technology in science and become knowledgeable about the two sides of various issues in such topics. Writers are encouraged to present both the positives and negatives of each topic, as well as thoroughly inform readers about the technologies. 
• What values and beliefs are assumed about or encouraged from the users of this genre?
• The users of this genre are assumed to value scientific technology and its advancements. Writers of this genre encourage belief in such advancements and future possibilities.
• What context does the genre treat as most valuable? Least valuable?
• The most valuable aspect of this genre is the background information on each topic. The genre focuses on presenting readers with ample accurate information and less on providing personal or emotional connections. 

Reflection

After reading Laurence and Mira's blog posts, I feel confident in the genre I chose. Laurence and I share a similar want for informal writing, with his genre being a bit more formal than mine, so that was nice to see. Mira's genre is very interesting and I;m excited to read her argument. I like my genre particularly because I don't like formal writing, and I love using images to tell a story. I can't wait to write!

Considering Types

In the following post, I will explain what type or argument from the reading I will be constructing and why it will work for me.

Vic. "Humanoids Arguing." 07/20/2011 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

The argument type I have chosen is the position argument. I find it easier to explain and defend something I believe in rather than analyze it, get causes, propose a solution, or refute it. With the position argument, it would allow me to give both sides of the issue semi-fairly and then spend the rest of the time defending my point of view, which is that genome-editing research should be allowed to continue, especially on humans. I can write my argument so that it specifically targets my intended audience (young people who have an interest in this topic).

The other arguments would not really wok for me because they do not fit my argument. There are no causes to the problem that would take up a whole essay and it wouldn't really fit the public argument piece that I want to write. Evaluation, proposal, and refutation argument don't fit my paper either, as I wanted to defend and explain my side and opinion, and the other types of arguments don't really allow for that.

Reflection

Victoria: Considering Types
My Rhetorical Action Plan

Isaak: Considering Types
My Rhetorical Action Plan

After reading both of Victoria and Isaak's posts, I feel better about both my considering types post and my rhetorical action plan post. The type of argument I want to write is a position argument, and Victoria has chosen the same one and she has a similar in idea controversial science topic, so that made me feel better about my choice. Both of their rhetorical action plans were lengthy and well-put together, and as I read through them I found many of the same kinds of concerns and targeted audience traits.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In the following post, I will answer three main questions about my rhetorical action plan.

Pete. "Project 365...Making Plans." 10/15/2009 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Audience: Who are you going to try to persuade with your public argument? Describe the following aspects of your audience in a few sentences:

• Knowledge: What does the audience know about the topic, text, or idea? How do they know the topic? Do they have certain predispositions or opinions about the topic that you will need to address?
• The targeted audience might know that this controversy exists or that genome editing research is a thing, but I don't think they know to what extent the research is being conducted, or that human embryos are being used within the research. They most likely know about the topic through their studies in science or if they stay even the least bit informed about world events, as the scientists in China received a lot of heat for conducting this research on human embryos. The audience may be worried about using human material, as much of the public is, and I will have to defend that aspect of the research.
• Values: What do you know about the values, ideals, principals, or norms that members of the audience might hold?
• The audience may value the research material that is being manipulated over the research being conducted itself. Many people tend to value that because they think the research being performed is unethical, so throwing human DNA into the mix will make them even more against this research.
• Standard of Argument: What type of research or evidence do you think will be persuasive for your audience? How might you have to translate this research for them?
• Most of the scientific research behind this argument will work to persuade the audience of the possibilities that continuing this type of research will open. Translating this research will be easy, because the concepts don't truly surpass high school biology and shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.
• Visual Elements: What visual images or elements might your audience respond to? Why?
• My audience will most likely respond to some nice images of DNA or some images of the double helix split down the middle. I want to stick to DNA images because they would be relevant to my issue and they're very pretty.
• Purpose: Why is your audience reading or listening to your argument? Are you trying to expand their understanding or viewpoint? How likely is your argument going to motivate your audience?
• The audience is listening to my argument so that they can be more informed on the subject of human genome-editing and support the continuation of the research. I want to expand their understanding of the topic and manipulate their viewpoint to fit mine. I want my argument to really motivate my argument to fight for the scientists' rights to research.

Genre: What form of writing will you use? After identifying your genre, list your responses to the following questions:

• Genre 1: Blogs
• Example 1, Example 2
• Genre 2: Academic Paper
• Example 1, Example 2
• What is the function of the genre? What is it designed to do for your readers? Or, why did you choose it?
• Genre 1: The function of this genre is to appeal to young people that use a lot of forms of social media, such as Tumblr, and can easily access the site where my paper would be posted. It would just be more easily accessible to the reader and would be more likely to be read by them (aka they would be more likely to stumble across my paper).
• Genre 2: This genre would be less easily accessible to young people, unless they're specifically being asked by someone to look up an academic source to use in a research project or something. Young people don't tend to look up scholarly articles just for fun or out of the blue because they're curious.
• What is the setting of your genre? Where could you see it being used?
• Genre 1: I could see this being used as a type of social media research into the topic. I like this genre because I can more easily express my opinion.
• Genre 2: I could see this being used in academic settings, as like an intro into the topic or used a source for a paper. I don't really want to write this too much in an academic style because its harder to give your opinion.
• How might you use the rhetorical appeals we have studied in this genre?
• Genre 1: It would be more difficult to use rhetorical appeals in this genre because it doesn't really fit the genre, but it would be doable if used subtly.
• Genre 2: It would be easier to use rhetorical appeals in an academic setting because it fits with the style of the genre. It would definitely be easy to incorporate into the writing.
• What type of visual elements might you use in this genre?
• Genre 1: I would try and use a couple of really nice pictures in this genre because it would be more likely to keep the readers attention and help them connect to the research better.
• Genre 2: I would probably not use any visual elements because it doesn't truly fit with the style of the genre, and pictures would just throw somebody off.
• What type of style will you use in this genre?
• Genre 1: I would use a more relaxed and casual writing style with this genre because its online and the place it will be published isn't very formal. It's more of a conversational style.
• Genre 2: I would be very formal with this genre of writing because I need to build credibility in this setting and be able to academically connect to my readers. I want to come across as professional.

Responses/Actions: Explain the possible actions you would like your audience to take after they read or view your argument?

• Positive Support
• Increased awareness on the topic of human genome editing
• Increased desire to support the continuation of the research
• People want to improve the human race and will be willing to do that through appealing to the people who write the legislature on the topic
• Negative Rebuttals
• People will not support my viewpoint or the research
• People will be held back by their own ethics 
• People will appeal to legislatures to not allow this research
• Response to Negative Rebuttals
• I can always debunk the ethical argument by asking what their ethics is based on, and where it comes from- basically asking what they're basing their beliefs on
• I can appeal to legislators to not be strict on writing the legislation for human genome editing in response to people asking for strictness
• I can continue to preach my opinion/viewpoint on the subject as a response to people not supporting my viewpoint

Analyzing Purpose

In the following post, I will answer a series of questions that analyze the purpose of my argument.

Sawyers, Seth. "Purpose." 05/14/2009 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1.Free write: I want my readers to want to fight for the right of scientists to research freely. I want them to realize that there is such potential behind the continuation of this research and there is a world of opportunity that has yet to be explored. The opposition has no true basis except an irrelevant ethics argument that can be easily deconstructed if you stress the points of innovation and success in science. Science shouldn't be halted because some people have a hard time accepting the way that science develops and the material that is being used will eventually help humankind as a whole. This is a worldwide issue, so I want my audience to see how the argument is being discussed worldwide.

2.Plausible:

• Audience will want to be alert and informed on the matter
• Audience might take an active role in this worldwide argument
• Audience will support my view
• Audience will be concerned about this issue

Not plausible:

• Audience will disagree and debunk my argument
• Audience will learn nothing from my argument
• Audience will think my argument is boring or pointless

3. Effects:

• Audience alertness may cause a more active and correct public argument and hopefully make right any public misconceptions
• The readers having an active role in the worldwide argument will hopefully direct the argument to have less bans or restrictions on genome editing through public opinion
• Supporting my view means supporting the continuation of genome editing, which in turn makes the world better
• Audience concern means greater audience awareness on the topic

4. Audiences: Enthusiastic young people that can steer public opinion collectively will be very useful and would be the most ideal audience. Those going into science would be even better because they can speak on the matter or at least be more properly informed on the matter. They are the ones who can speak to the people who control the rules about human genome editing, and hopefully sway the legislators to be less strict.

Analyzing Context

In the following post, I will analyze the context of my controversy for Project 3.

Restivo, Davide. "I'm thinking of...". 04/10/2008 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

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

• The key perspectives on the genome editing debate are either in support of continuation of this research, or in opposition of it. The opposition bases their argument on ethics and sometimes religion, while the support wants to advance human development and solve issues that pertain to fighting diseases.

What are the major points of contention or major disagreements on these perspectives?

• The major point of contention is the use of human embryos. The support claims that it is necessary to use human embryos to see the effects that modifying the human DNA will have. The opposition is not willing to compromise on using human genes, because they believe that it is not ethical or right to change the waves of evolution.

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

• I think that a point of agreement is that both parties want human improvement to occur, and this type of research could save many people, with a variety of different diseases if the research ever developed enough. The opposition just cannot stand for the supports use of human embryos.

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

• The support values the continuation and development of this research above the fact that the material they're using is human. The opposition values the research material over the research. The support focuses more on the advancement and what that means for science as a whole, while the opposition is stuck on the fact that part of the research material is human.

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

• The support wants their audience to see the good in what this research can accomplish, and not be stopped by what ethics dictates. The opposition wants to halt this research, have a large worldwide discussion, then edit the way the research is done, and then continue the genome editing research.

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

• The support is most in favor of my argument. I agree with them, as well, because I also believe that the advancement of science is more important than what society says we should be ethically concerned about. 

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

• The ethical argument will be the biggest threat to my argument, because they have a variety of arguments to back them up, especially a religious argument. I have no way to refute that because I have no evidence beside my own personal opinion and science. 

Reflection

After looking at Samantha and Chelsea's blogs, I feel better about my own responses,and am excited to read about everybody's different issues and perspectives on topics. I read a few that had similar arguments, and I'm especially looking forward to how those perspectives would compare to mine. Both of the posts I read had really good analysis of their topics and I hope I did an equally good job.

Audience and Genre

In the following post, I will identify the audience I am writing to in Project 3.

Salvaje. "Forest concert: The audience." 05/24/2015 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

My Audience 1: The general public who opposes the continuation of this research

While it may be odd, I want to address the people who oppose the possible positive implications of genome-editing. I want my public argument to convince protesters of this research to see the errors of their ways, and realize that the positives overcome the negatives. I can see where their fears are coming from, but I want to unfold their argument.

Publication: 1. An article from an online news source

• The general public often checks the news online to keep in touch with the rest of the world and the area around them, like Tucson's K-9 'On Your Side'. If I managed to get published there through talking about research in the field, it would definitely get out.
  Example 1, Example 2

2. Some form of information, like an article or video, being passed around on social media

• If something is passed around on Facebook or Twitter, it would definitely get back to the general public, especially those who seek out to talk about the negative effects of the research.
  Example 1, Example 2

My Audience 2: Students in my field who are interested in pursuing research in this topic

This would be a good intro for students going into my field to read, especially if they're looking for an area to pursue research in. I want to impress upon them that this topic is interesting and hopefully sway the way that their research takes. I want to bias them beginning as soon as they enter college.

Publication: 1. An op-ed piece in the Daily Wildcat

• This publication would immediately target the intended audience because its on campus, super accessible to college students, and free. Anyone reading the paper in their leisure would get to read my article.
  Example 1, Example 2

2. An article or blog in a scientific journal

• This would get to college students going in to my field, too, because professors assign scientific reading to students going into the sciences to get them familiar with the writing style. This would definitely reach college kids who have to write about reports about scientific articles.
  Example 1, Example 2

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In the following post, I will include a list of sources to aid me as I work toward the completion of Project 3.

Fife, John. "Fridge words." 02/27/2007 via Flickr.
 Attribution No-Derivs 2.0 Generic License. 

Here is a link to my extended annotated bibliography.

Narrowing My Focus

In the following post, I will narrow my focus on a topic so I can begin to craft my public argument for Project 3.

Varlan, Horia. "Question mark made of puzzle pieces." 10/23/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Question 1: Who is getting involved that isn't in the science community?

• This is important to answer because it can give perspective on how people outside geneticists and worried scholars are reacting to this. What do strong figures or even the general public think of this research? I am curious to know. This can be used to build my public argument, too.

Question 2: What part of the research is primarily opposed?

• This is important because knowing the answer to this question can help build a good rebuttal in support of continuing this research. This can unfold the whole argument of the opposition. I am also eager to know the answer to this question, because there is so much that can be done to improve humanity using this research.

Questions about Controversy

In this post, I will pose questions about my controversy.

Blumenthal, Roy. "Question Mark Phoenix." 06/13/2008 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

WHO is involved in this controversy?

• Who is primarily supporting and opposing the continuation of genome-editing research?
• Who is primarily discussing continuing support into the genome-editing world?
• Who is getting involved that isn't in the science community?

WHAT is up for debate in this controversy?

• What part of the research is primarily opposed?
• What part of the research would groups be fine with?
• What do they believe is truly harmful about this research?

WHEN did this controversy unfold?

• When did this 'siding' begin?
• When was the research first negatively or positively talked about?
• When did bans on this research originally begin?

WHERE did this controversy unfold?

• Where was this research first pursued?
• Were many areas/countries conducting this research concurrently?
• Where were the first bans on this research placed?

HOW did this controversy unfold in the media?

• Who talked about this research first and in what light?
• How has the media portrayed this research positively and negatively?
• How did the public react to this research?

Reflection on Project 2

In this post, I will reflect on my Project 2 Revision process.

Mancini, Anderson. "Reflection." 11/19/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

• Basically everything. I don't think I kept one thing the same from my rough draft to my final draft. It had a complete makeover, but it was definitely worth the revampification. My body paragraphs had the biggest adjustments, mostly because they had nothing before, but now they are full and girthy. 

Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

• I didn't reconsider my thesis that much, but I added to it. I also changed the rhetorical strategies that I was looking at, so that changes as a default. The organization came easy and I just followed the things listed in the thesis. 

What led to these changes? A reconsideration of audiences? A shift in purpose?

• The changes came as a shift in purpose. I realized I had a lot left to analyze and I needed to do so effectively. I basically restarted from scratch. I knew who the audience was the whole time, so that was not an issue that I truly had to address, except maybe nearing the final editing of my draft. 

How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

• I think that to be a good author, you have to be willing to make changes and except when things need to be rewritten or redone. My credibility would actually increase, according to the previous statement, because I made necessary changes. 

How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

• The changes made my writing more direct and increased sensibility. My audience, other incoming students in my field, will be better informed. I literally changed everything about my old essay, even the font. I added a lot of necessary aspects. 

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

• I didn't really have any solid sentence structure before, as my rough draft was more of a reflection of my ideas than anything else. My style and sentence structure definitely formed as I edited and revised. 

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

• My purpose definitely became clearer as I edited and revised. I actually said what the authors purpose was, as well as mine, so that will most likely clear up any confusion that my audience had before.

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

• No, I am very familiar with the essay style of writing from high school, so much so that I could write a five-paragraph essay in my sleep. I had to adjust the essay a bit for my audience, but that is to be expected for any paper when your audience differs from the teacher or class alone.

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

• The process of reflection showed me that I am bad at doing things in a timely manner. It was very difficult to actually get the writing done, as seen in my first draft, but once I did, I really enjoyed editing. The final product is always worth it. 

Reflection

After reading Laurence and Mira's blog posts on the Project 2 Reflection, I feel good about my own reflection. We all have different challenges and do things in different manners, so unique struggles are to be expected. I agreed with Mira on some things, as well as with Laurence on some things, but I differed on some things I did, like basically starting from scratch for my final draft.