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.

Final Project 2 Draft

In the following post, I will provide a link to the final draft of my Project 2 Essay. Here is the link.

Baker, Mic. "Champions League Final Wembley 2013." 05/23/2013 via Flickr.
Attribution No-Derivs 2.0 Generic License.

Punctuation, Part 2

In this post, I will discuss three more topics I read about in the Punctuation section of the Rules for Writers book: the comma, quotation marks, and the apostrophe.

Chan, Chris. "Badly punctuated sign." 03/22/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

The Comma

• After reading this section, I realized that my use of commas has been pretty spot-on, probably due to my excessive reading before I entered middle school. I know how to use commas in mostly every scenario that was mentioned, but reviewing definitely did no harm to my mind and its knowledge of how to properly use commas. 

Quotation Marks

• In this section, the proper use of quotation marks was discussed. I thought I knew how to properly use quotation marks, but there was still things discussed that surprised me, such as not to use quotations when quoting excessively long sections. I know how to properly use quotations in every other scenario discussed, though.

The Apostrophe

• This section addresses the uses of the apostrophe. I always get confused as to how to properly use an apostrophe, so this section definitely helped clarify that aspect. This section helped the most, and it was beneficial in such a way that can be applied to my writing. 

Example 1, comma: "To prevent this from happening to others she is encouraging others to get tested for the BRCA gene."

to

"To prevent this from happening to others, she is encouraging others to get tested for the BRCA gene."

This serves to appropriately separate the dependent clause from the independent.

Example 2, apostrophe: "The combination of ethos and pathos used in the article works effectively and achieves the authors goal of getting people concerned and informed about the BRCA gene."

to

"The combination of ethos and pathos used in the article works effectively and achieves the author's goal of getting people concerned and informed about the BRCA gene."
This serves to appropriately distribute ownership in the context.

Copy for Paragraph Analysis 2

In the following post, I will edit and analyze my own paragraphs.

phantomswife. "Writing." 08/17/2012 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

You can find a copy of my paragraph analysis here.

My paragraphs were not well-developed at all, so I added a lot more to them. They all had a main topic sentence, but didn't do much of anything else. I had some time to edit it, so I made strong revisions.

Revised Conclusion

In the following post, I will revise my conclusion.

My new conclusion is better because it has a bit more substance to it. I was just trying to put words on paper before, but now I have a bit more composition and structure to my conclusion. I mention the rhetorical strategies used and address my audience ( people in my field) when I say this is a good example of an article to take an analysis of.

Burgos, Nate. "Project detail: Writing." 10/10/2012 via Flickr.
Attribution No-Derivs 2.0 Generic License. 

Old: The rhetorical strategies that my author uses are effective and manage to achieve her goal: to convince the audience to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation. Getting tested for the gene would change the type a treatment that a person would receive to target the prevention of cancer returning. This would save the diagnosed person a lot of pain.

New: Through the use of Wurtzel's ethical and emotional appeals, specifically thorugh her use of a personal narrative, her overall tone, and her true reputation, she effectively convinces the reader to go get tested for the BRCA gene mutation. The test has the power to save lives because it can tailor a medical approach in such a way that it would make it difficult for cancer to return with a vengeance. The rhetorical strategies used above make this article a good example of an article to perform a rhetorical analysis of, and give an idea as to how and why the science field writes about certain topics.

Revised Introduction

In the following post, I will revise my introduction.

My new intro is better than my old one because it is more direct, and does not generalize. I feel like the new hook is ok, but still needs work. I tried to avoid redundancy so the second is a lot shorter but everything included in the new intro is still there and essential to the rest of the essay. I also mention what I will be doing, to at least give the reader a hint as to what this is about.

Rubensson, Fredrik. "diary writing." 07/20/2013 via Flickr.
9Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

Old: Most people can say they have someone in their family that has been affected by cancer, whether it be breast cancer, lung cancer, etc. Elizabeth Wurtzel was directly affected when she herself was diagnosed with breast cancer earlier this year, and had to undergo many chemotherapy treatments and surgeries. To prevent this from happening to others, she is encouraging others to get tested for the BRCA gene. In Elizabeth Wurtzel’s article, “The Breast Cancer Gene and Me”, she persuades the reader to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation using rhetorical strategies, such as a personal narrative, tone, and her own reputation. The combination of ethos and pathos used in the article works effectively and achieves the authors goal of getting people concerned and informed about the BRCA gene.

New: At the young age of 15, my grandmother was diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer and barely survived. Elizabeth Wurtzel was directly affected by cancer when she herself was diagnosed with breast cancer earlier this year, and had to undergo many chemotherapy treatments and surgeries. In her article, "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me", she persuades the reader to get tested using rhetorical strategies like personal narrative, tone, and her background. I will be analyzing her choice of rhetorical strategies, and their effectiveness.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In the following post, I will reflect on whose drafts I peer edited and answer questions from Students Guide about my draft.

Engelhart, Adam. "Internet Draft $3." 10/11/2005 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

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

• I do have an identifiable thesis. I specifically mention what rhetorical strategies are used, the author, the article name, and the purpose. I think it is well done, especially its organization, and I do later mention the vague terms, like ethos and pathos.

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 have decided to organize my essay using a mix of the rhetorical strategies and ethos/pathos. Each paragraph does have a central point, but it is not yet supported with evidence from the text and in-depth analysis. One of the main things I'll need to work on is my body paragraphs, because they just need to exist. 

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

• I did identify and analyze the three elements of the rhetorical situation. The context could use a lot more work, and the audience is okay, but the author credentials are better, yet I think I should mention her educational credentials to add to her good reputation from this article. 

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 not discuss why certain ones were chosen, I could definitely develop that as I write. I did discuss the effects of the strategies on the audience, and I concluded that the text was overall effective in achieving the authors goal. 

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

• I am not thoughtfully using evidence yet, but I will, as I write going into the future. I will be mentioning specific text that the author uses to pinpoint how and when rhetorical strategies are used, and then I will follow with their relevance. 

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

• I hope I left my reader wanting more. I didn't answer the so what question in the conclusion yet, but it still needs a lot of work, so I will definitely be aiming to answer that question when my conclusion has some more substance.

Punctuation, Part 1

In the following post, I will reflect on three things I read about in the Punctuation section in the Rules for Writers book: the semicolon, the colon, and end punctuation.

frankieleon. "Sign of the Times." 04/05/2009 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

The Semicolon

• The section discusses how to properly use a semicolon. I don't have a lot of experience with using semicolons, just because I never really knew what they were for or how to properly use them. It turns out, however, that you can use them to link together independent transitional clauses, or between items in a series containing internal punctuation. I will definitely apply this to my writing in the future.

The Colon

• This section talks about how to properly use a colon. I found that I try to avoid using colons for the same reasons as why I avoid using a semicolon, but I definitely use it. When I do, its usually correct, too. I knew to use a semicolon when listing things and when to apply a colon to convention. This is a good thing to review, though. 

End Punctuation

• This section discusses how to properly use end punctuation. After reading over it, I find that I am an expert on end punctuation. I feel like everyone knows how to properly use end punctuation, so I can't really say I learned anything new in this section, but it was nice to review. 

Reflection

I reviewed Laurence and Isaac's drafts. Here are examples from both:

Isaac's Example

Before: "There are various perceptions being passed around, and it is crucial to make your point evident."

After: "There are various perceptions being passed around; it is crucial to make your point evident."

Laurence's Example

Before: "Both of these methods, while important and significant, are ultimately subserviant to Baruth's logical point about the probable value of automakers working a little harder to serve their youngest customers.

After: "Both of these methods, while important and significant, are ultimately subserviant to Baruth's logical point; the probably value of automakers working a little harder to serve their youngest customers."

Both semicolons serve to make the sentences stronger and more direct. 

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

In the following post, I will provide a link to my Project 2 Draft. Here is the link.

Beall, Jeffrey. "Draft." 04/24/2011 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License. 

This is a very, very, very rough draft of Project 2. Please be very harsh, I like to know how to improve my skills. I know I have some bad habits that are easy to fall into, so don't be shy about commenting about that. I just really like feedback, so please comment!

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In the following post, I will choose a quote from my article and properly summarize and paraphrase it.

Jurvetson, Steve. "How the Eagle Landed- the Grumman Construction Log."
 07/17/2012 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Original Source

• "I did not know I had the BRCA gene. I did not know I would get breast cancer when I was still young, when the disease is a wild animal. I caught it fast and I acted fast, but I must have looked away: by the time of my double mastectomy, the cancer had spread to five lymph nodes. I had eight rounds of the strongest chemotherapy there is for breast cancer. Two months later, my body still tingles from the blast. My insides are shimmering. I am reconfigured."

Paraphrase of Original Source

• In "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me", Elizabeth Wurtzel tells a tale of the pain and suffering she underwent, using descriptive words to show the remnants of agony she endured and how they still effect her. This personal narrative strategy is used to convince the audience to get tested for the BRCA gene, particularly those with a history of cancer in their family. 

Summary of the Original Source

• In the beginning of the article, Elizabeth Wurtzel begins with telling of the agony she endured, and it later connects to how one can avoid that pain by getting tested for the BRCA gene. 

Project 2 Outline

In the following post, I will present an outline of my Project 2 draft, as well as write an explanatory paragraph.

gfpeck. "Extra, Extra!" 07/30/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

The "Sections of the Paper" section in Writing Public Lives helped me organize my ideas, and introduced me to structuring my Project 2 Outline. It starts by addressing the three main sections of an essay: intro, body and conclusion. I am very familiar with this, as I grew accustomed to it during high school, but reading about it helped refresh the ideas and the way they should be presented. The text that we will be presenting should be focused, straightforward, and informative. Other points were discussed such as analytical claims, and explained in a way that serves to organize the text you will be writing further. Throughout the points discussed, thesis, analytical claim, and support for the claim should be strong, direct, and informative.

Intro: Background

• Author reputation
• Time of publication differences (or lack of)
• Strategies used, but use this after thesis has been stated

Thesis:

• In Elizabeth Wurtzel's article, "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me", she persuades the reader to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation using rhetorical strategies such as personal narratives, tone, and the reputation of the author herself. The combination of ethos and pathos used convinces the reader to get tested. 

Body:

• Claim: Personal narrative = ethos and pathos
• Credibility b/c of experience
• Experience leads to ability to honestly speak on topic
• Tone and Word Choice = Ethos
• Certain words depict the tone the author is aiming for
• Bring out reaction in audience to achieve goal
• Reputation of author = ethos and pathos
• Experience with topic
• Professional career
• Level of education and where

Conclusion:

• Restate claims
• Analyze effectiveness of author's strategies
• Restate author goal

Reflection

After reading Hallye and Chelsea's blog posts on the Project 2 Outline, I feel a bit apprehensive about the way I organized my outline. Chelsea's was very organized, to the point that I feel bad about mine, but it was very well done. Hallye had a similar outline to mine, so that made me feel a bit more comfortable about what I did. 

Draft Thesis Statements

In the following post, I will draft a couple of thesis statement examples.

Kheel Center. "Meyer London giving a speech." 10/01/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

Thesis #1:

• In Elizabeth Wurtzel's article, "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me", she persuades the reader to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation using rhetorical strategies such as personal narratives, tone, and the reputation of the author herself. The combination of ethos and pathos used will persuade the audience to go get tested.

Thesis #2:

• The article "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me", written by Elizabeth Wurtzel, persuades the reader to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation. Through her use of primarily ethical and emotional appeals, by using personal narratives, a specific tone, and having a reliable reputation, she readily convinces the reader to get tested. 

Thoughts: Out of both the theses I drafted, I prefer the first one because I like its organization more. It begins with the authors name, article title, and purpose, specifically calling out the strategies used. It just seems more put together than the second one. The second one isn't as pretty because the organiation of it throws me off.

Reflection

After reading Casey and Chloe's blog posts on their drafted thesis statements, I feel better about my own. Everyone has their own different styles, and that is really apparent when looking at other peoples draft theses. Chloe's these were short, precise, and opinionated, whereas Casey's were a bit more like mine, and had more details. 

Analyzing My Audience

In the following post, I will answer a series of questions based on the audience I am writing for.

OFFICIAL LEWEB PHOTOS. "Audience @ LeWeb 11 Les Docks-9321."
 12/09/2011 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs and assumptions?

• I am writing for freshman entering my field of study. I am showing them how a correct rhetorical analysis would be done on an article. The audience will most likely have a few assumptions about science, especially that any advancements in science are good for humankind. 

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

• They will most likely take the author's side in the text, as what she is speaking on is not bad to people, and has no negative stigma. They will want people to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation. I will need to respond by neutrally analyzing the text, not by actively supporting it. 

What will they want to know?

• They will want to know the background of where the article comes from. I will have to mention the new technology discovered and discuss how it applies to what the author is speaking on. 

How might they react to my argument?

• I think they will agree with my argument. It is also subjective, so the audience could see it another way, but I think analyzing the text in a certain way will allow the readers to connect what they think to what I am writing, 

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

• I am trying to relate to my audience by writing on a subject that I have an interest in, as one would hope because its my major. They would share the same interest, and that would connect us.

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

• There are words like 'gene' and 'mutation' that will help me connect with my audience because they are science words. The idea of science itself will help me connect with my audience, as we all share that common field of study. 

Reflection

After reading Andrea and Laurence's blog posts, I feel more comfortable with the answers I wrote down. I feel like my answers are straightforward, honest, and get to the core of my expected  audience. I like my style, but I also enjoyed looking at how other people organized their blog, it does a good job of showing other examples, rather than do the same thing over and over again. 

Cluster of "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me"

In the following post, I will present a cluster of my article, and the rhetorical strategies used within it.

Macklin-Isquierdo, Sam. "Screenshot of my Cluster." 10/13/2015. 

My cluster is organized into three different sections: Cultural Values/Ideology, Rhetorical Situation, and Rhetorical Strategies. Each branch also expands on the material covered in my article, "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me."

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me"

In the following post, I will answer questions about the identification and analysis of rhetorical strategies in my text.

williami5. "Breast cancer reflection." 06/09/2012 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Appeals to Credibility or Character (Ethos)

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

• Personal stories
• Word choice
• Tone
• Author's public image
• Information about the author's expertise
• Appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience

How and why would the authors use these strategies?

• The author would use these strategies to appeal to the sense of trust in the audience. She has a professional reputation as a New York Times journalist, as well as a published author, so her reputation precedes her. Her tone was respectful, honest, and straightforward and her values match those of society. 

How do these strategies affect the audience's perception of the authors' credibility and character?

• Her use of these strategies help build her credibility with the audience. They provide the audience with good reasons to trust what she is saying. 

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text's overall message?

• The text is vastly more effective with her use of these strategies. It helps the audience build trust in her words and are more likely to assume what she is saying is true. 

Does the author seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?

• The author doesn't seem to have any biases or assumptions that IMPACT her credibility negatively. Her bias is justified because of her personal experience on the subject, and I believe it only adds to her credibility. 

Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)

Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)" on page 183 can you recognize in your text?

• Personal stories or other emotionally compelling narratives
• Repetition of key words
• Level of formality
• Tone of voice

What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?

• The emotional response the author is attempting to create would be to encourage the audience to get tested for the mutation. Her whole article centers around her personal anecdote. 

What is the actual result?

• The author succeeds in her goals to persuade the audience to get tested for the gene mutation. Her personal narrative is very compelling, especially the pain she endured, both physically and emotionally.

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

• The emotions are effective- nothing encourages people more than fear of having a gene that causes pain on top of the fact that you have cancer. This is effective because it achieves the author's goal. 

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author or the logic of the text?

• The emotional appeals add to the credibility of the author because her personal experience on the subject automatically justifies anything she says as the truth. She has experienced the pain due to the lack of getting tested for the BRCA gene mutation. 

Appeals to Logic (Logos)

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

• Statistics
• Effective organization of sentences, paragraphs, ideas, etc.
• Arrangement of text for emphasis/focus

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

• The author is attempting to appeal to the logical side of the audience. Her argument is logical: get tested and save yourself the pain. The audience is sure to respond to that in hopes of avoiding pain.

What is the actual result?

• The goal of the author is achieved- to encourage/persuade people to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation.  It's the common sense thing to do, especially because cancer is so prevalent in our society.

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

• The strategies are effective for this audience- everyone. Logic is basic common sense for the public, so it is very effective. 

Reflection

After reading Swati and Chelsea's blog posts on analyzing rhetorical strategies, I feel a lot better about mine. It may be short, but all the answers are there. I'm more of a minimalist in my work sometimes, but I will probably add length to the analysis for the end of Project 2. I liked Swati's organization and answers, they were well-thought out. Chelsea had good use of her authors quotes, which is something I probably should have done.

Analyzing Message in "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me"

In the following post, I will answer questions about the text's message and purpose.

O'Rear, Paul. "Bible, Reading Glasses, Notes and Pen." 02/24/2007 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License. 

Out of all the bullets listed for "Message and Purpose" on page 181, which two or three seem most relevant to the goals of your text's author? Why?

• The three bullets that seem most relevant to the author's goal is 'express an idea or opinion', 'persuade an audience of something', and to 'move the readers to feel a certain way'. The author, in my case, uses all three of these methods to stress the importance of getting tested for BRCA gene mutation. 

Which bullet points do NOT seem relevant to the goals of your text's author? Why not?

• The author of my text does not 'analyze, synthesize, or interpret', nor is she 'responding to a particular situation.' The author of my text's main priority is to persuade people to get tested, so there is no analysis being done of anything, and breast cancer has been an issue for ages, so the author isn't responding to that, either. 

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author is trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

• The message the author of my text is trying to get across is straight and to the point, so there is really no need for layers. It is an opinion article, so she is getting her opinion out there using a personal anecdote that doesn't have any layers. 

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

In the following post, I will analyze the text's relationship to our own cultural assumptions.

USAG Humphreys. "Breast Cancer Awareness Walk/Run." 10/19/2012 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

What cultural or social values do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

• The text was written in our culture, so we share all the same social values that the author does. We both value innovation and the improvement in the welfare of others, and I feel like many others do, as well. They have endured because they focus on the betterment of society, and society is continually working towards that as their main goal.

What cultural or social values do we not share? Why not?

• There are no values that the author and I disagree on. Both the author and I believe heartily in scientific advancement for the betterment of the world, and there isn't anything mentioned that I don't agree with. 

If the text is written in a culture distant or different than our own, what social values connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values can we not see in our own culture?

• The text is written in my culture, so the social values and directly connect because they are the same. All the social values are present in our culture.

If the text is written in our culture but at a different historical time, how have the social values developed or changed over time?

• The text was written about a week ago, so all of the social values are still the same and current. 

Reflection

After reading Elliot and Victoria's blog posts, I feel very comfortable with how I analyzed my own article's culture compared to my own. We all had good, developed analyses of our articles, but in their case, they both had disagreements with what the author said or how he said it. I completely agree with my author and her presentation because I think it is more effective. 

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

In the following post, I will analyze my article's cultural setting. My text was published on the New York Times website, on September 25, 2015. The writer is from the New York City, NY,  and is writing about the specific time she suffered from breast cancer due to lack of testing. She also holds degrees from Harvard and Yale.

Fayram, Dave. "Glowing Genome". 01/04/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

What values ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

• The value of innovation and improvement in welfare of others is what the text portrays. The author wants to prevent the suffering of others the way she suffered, so she is strongly advocating that women get tested for the BRCA gene mutation. The culture in the text strongly wants to ease the suffering of people.

Does the text address the cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly (by directly mentioning or responding to them) or indirectly (by presenting a scenario or narrative that addresses them)?

• The text addresses the cultural values indirectly, by the author presenting her situation. The anecdote includes the pain and agony the author endured due to the lack of testing, so getting tested will definitely better for people who have the misfortune of being diagnosed with breast cancer.

What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects in a certain way?

• The text supports the values and beliefs of the culture. It doesn't seek to modify the aspects of the culture in any way- it seeks to reinforce it. It wants to reinforce the idea that getting tested is a good idea, and it wants to reinforce the values of innovation and improvement in the welfare of others.

Cultural Analysis of "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me"

In the following post, I will analyze certain cultural aspects of my chosen article, "The Breast Cancer Gene and Me."

GDS Infographics. "Cancer". 04/12/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

Keywords for the article: "tested", and "mutation". Both keywords are important to the development of the article, as the main issue is a gene mutation, and the author talks about getting tested for that particular gene mutation multiple times.

Basic thesis: Getting tested for the BRCA gene mutation will allow doctors to tailor a treatment method to you, particularly to avoid a relapse, and this new testing mechanism will save many lives.

Keyword support main argument: The keywords support the main argument by having negative connotations that will make the reader take the issue more seriously. The writer wants people to get tested, which has a negative connotation with STD's, for a genetic mutation, which has a negative connotation with weird sci-fi aliens.