Friday, December 11, 2015
Final Open Letter
This post was just an extra thing I'm doing for people like me in the sense that I want to see what other people are doing. So If anyone wants to see how my finished open letter turned out, here it is.
 |
| Herzberger, Matt. "Hooray for LOLcats" 5/16/2007 via flichr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. |
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Reflection on Open Letter Draft
This post will be an analysis of sorts for my draft of the final open letter. I'll use A Student's Guide to First Year Writing's list on pages 253-256 to get a close look at the draft itself and the feedback I got (but definitely didn't deserve, thank you, Charles), and what I still need to do.
 |
| 'Post Memes.' "Baby Goat Resting" 8/7/2014 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
I'll start by mentioning the peer review process for the final. I thought I came really late to the party in terms of finishing my draft, so I figured A) nobody would have any drafts left to peer review, and B) no one would bother by the time I was finished to peer review mine. So I didn't peer review anyone's letter, bu to my shock I ended up with feedback on mine (again, thanks, Charles).
Did you demonstrate an ability to think about your writing and yourself as a writer?
I think I did. And I was certainly honest, especially about how my own biases against English class tended to get in my way.
Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments or concepts you have learned?
I did, but I think I could be more descriptive. I mentioned mostly surface-level stuff, I think.
Did you provide concrete examples from your own writing (either quotes from your writing or rich descriptions of your writing process)?
Sort-of. I referenced entire assignments and explained my process on them, but I should try to find specific text that could fit a s a quote.
Did you explain why you made certain choices and whether those choices were effective?
Once, I think. It's not enough, but it's a start. But my major choice I have, concerning time management.
Did you use specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process?
I mentioned the concept of genre, but I can also add stuff about rhetorical situations and strategies.
I think I did. And I was certainly honest, especially about how my own biases against English class tended to get in my way.
Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments or concepts you have learned?
I did, but I think I could be more descriptive. I mentioned mostly surface-level stuff, I think.
Did you provide concrete examples from your own writing (either quotes from your writing or rich descriptions of your writing process)?
Sort-of. I referenced entire assignments and explained my process on them, but I should try to find specific text that could fit a s a quote.
Did you explain why you made certain choices and whether those choices were effective?
Once, I think. It's not enough, but it's a start. But my major choice I have, concerning time management.
Did you use specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process?
I mentioned the concept of genre, but I can also add stuff about rhetorical situations and strategies.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Draft of Open Letter
This post will primarily serve as a link to my draft of an open letter to my professor and peers. Now this is the story all about how my life got flipped - turned upside-down, I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there, I'll tell you how I became the writer I am today.
I think my letter is a bit awkward, so I guess the organization is my main concern. Beyond that, as always, I stress it's a rough draft. I'm also not sure if I was too pessimistic or self-critical. I though I did a pretty good job of describing my experience, but if it comes off as focused too much on the negatives, that'd be good to know.
 |
| Children drawing. "Horses in meadow" 4/7/2015 via torange Attribution 4.0 International License. |
Reflecting More on my Writing Experiences
 |
| Elsamuko. "Infinity Mirror Effect" 9/28/2010 via wikimedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. |
This post will be questions and answers concerning my experience throughout the course.
1. What were the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?
Starting working. I can do my work all right once I start, but I always seem to drag it out, and start at, what time is it... around 9:00 the night before it's due. I know - I fully understand - declaratively, that it only makes it worse. It only seems so bad because that's how I make it. But it doesn't matter, when all I seem to have internalized is that it's horrible experience. Oh, well, I still did it all eventually.
2. What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?
I learned that I really don't like doing things I don't want to. Also, I learned exactly how much time I need to do these posts, but more than that, I learned to effectively condense my work into as little time as possible - except for some times, which I'll talk about in #5.
3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.
A genre is a category. A defining set of common characteristics across everything within the genre. This allows readers to expect a certain style they want, and helps writers convey information in a way the readers will be on bard with. To be an effective writer, one must adhere to whatever conventions the genre demands, as A) They are usually conventions for a practical reason and B) not doing so would come off as weird, or worse, surprising and distracting from the message.
4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?
I'm not sure about further developing skills, beyond just passively doing so in writing the less-demanding pieces I'll still have to for other classes in college, and whatever my jobs make me do in the future. However, the practice I got for thinking critically, more than just "what is the author saying" will allow me to get more information from each thing I read from here on out. A fair trade-off, I'd say: some difficult work for permanently increasing what I can get out of everything.
5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H?
Some times, I would actually lose myself - not often - and actually do my work for more intrinsic reasons than just "I've got to." The most vivid time this happened was during the peer review for project 3. I spent soooooooo long reviewing someone's project, and when I was done, I was actually proud of something I did in an English class. Now I don't even remember who's it was or what it was about, but what sticks with me was that through that person's text, I came to understand the topic, and the author's viewpoint, and I was able to work with that information in a meaningful way. (I hope it was meaningful, at least.) This was the sheet for it, and I think I spent 2 or 3 hours reading and working for it.
6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H?
Definitely from deadline 2 or 3, when I let the "don't start" impulses win. I spent a full 24 hour period doing a single deadline (Friday night 6 pm to Saturday 6pm) tying trying to start. I must have spent at least four total hours just looking at my screen. I ate a lot, took a lot of 'naps' (i couldn't drift off for more that 10 minutes before all I could think was "eeeeeeeeeeengliiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssh, must fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnniiiiiissssssssssssssh" and I would go back to staring. I also spent an hour going for the first walk I've gone on (walking for the sake of walking), and pretty much the rest taking breaks, my rationalization being "I've been at this a while, and nothing's changed. maybe if I leave and come back, I'll do my work."
Starting working. I can do my work all right once I start, but I always seem to drag it out, and start at, what time is it... around 9:00 the night before it's due. I know - I fully understand - declaratively, that it only makes it worse. It only seems so bad because that's how I make it. But it doesn't matter, when all I seem to have internalized is that it's horrible experience. Oh, well, I still did it all eventually.
2. What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?
I learned that I really don't like doing things I don't want to. Also, I learned exactly how much time I need to do these posts, but more than that, I learned to effectively condense my work into as little time as possible - except for some times, which I'll talk about in #5.
3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.
A genre is a category. A defining set of common characteristics across everything within the genre. This allows readers to expect a certain style they want, and helps writers convey information in a way the readers will be on bard with. To be an effective writer, one must adhere to whatever conventions the genre demands, as A) They are usually conventions for a practical reason and B) not doing so would come off as weird, or worse, surprising and distracting from the message.
4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?
I'm not sure about further developing skills, beyond just passively doing so in writing the less-demanding pieces I'll still have to for other classes in college, and whatever my jobs make me do in the future. However, the practice I got for thinking critically, more than just "what is the author saying" will allow me to get more information from each thing I read from here on out. A fair trade-off, I'd say: some difficult work for permanently increasing what I can get out of everything.
5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H?
Some times, I would actually lose myself - not often - and actually do my work for more intrinsic reasons than just "I've got to." The most vivid time this happened was during the peer review for project 3. I spent soooooooo long reviewing someone's project, and when I was done, I was actually proud of something I did in an English class. Now I don't even remember who's it was or what it was about, but what sticks with me was that through that person's text, I came to understand the topic, and the author's viewpoint, and I was able to work with that information in a meaningful way. (I hope it was meaningful, at least.) This was the sheet for it, and I think I spent 2 or 3 hours reading and working for it.
6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H?
Definitely from deadline 2 or 3, when I let the "don't start" impulses win. I spent a full 24 hour period doing a single deadline (Friday night 6 pm to Saturday 6pm) tying trying to start. I must have spent at least four total hours just looking at my screen. I ate a lot, took a lot of 'naps' (i couldn't drift off for more that 10 minutes before all I could think was "eeeeeeeeeeengliiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssh, must fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnniiiiiissssssssssssssh" and I would go back to staring. I also spent an hour going for the first walk I've gone on (walking for the sake of walking), and pretty much the rest taking breaks, my rationalization being "I've been at this a while, and nothing's changed. maybe if I leave and come back, I'll do my work."
Revisiting My Writing Process
 |
| 'Ambernectar 13.' "Evie Looking in the Mirror" 4/11/2012 via flickr. Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License. |
In my first post, "my writing process," I talked about how I write very little, and how I'm not a particularly good writer, probably because of that. I feel that now, I'm a little better, as I have written so much this semester, and been forced into those other categories, by participating in pre-writing work and revisions. However, the core of my view hasn't changed: I still don't enjoy writing, and I've already reached the point where I can write well enough. For example, in my other classes (and these are college-level writing situations), I very easily just wrote in a stream of consciousness (no revisions or pre-writing work), and got all A's. By this I mean that, while I don't think I'm an exceptional writer, I have the skills I will actually need to apply in any situation outside of an English class.
*I don't mean to poop all over this class - regardless of my attitude, it was very successful in forcing me to grow as a writer. The practice analyzing and actively thinking through text I did will continue to benefit me whenever I need to write.*
In terms of my prediction and plan for time management that I talked about in my second post, "Calendar Reflection," I thought I might be proactive each week. It turned out that I did have as much time as I though I would, but I never felt like I did. Maybe college freedom made me spend way too much time on other things that I wanted to do - and not much of it was actually video games - leaving me to do my homework for long periods of time. Ultimately I knew I might do all my work on Saturdays, as I implied with my tone in that post, But it all worked out all right.
For the future, I think, as I said, I'll be all right as far as writing goes. It might seem like my work ethic is trash, but I do enough work, and in subjects I have an interest (and no mental barriers stopping me from hating what I have to do), I have and will put in much more time and effort, because I choose to study those things.
*I don't mean to poop all over this class - regardless of my attitude, it was very successful in forcing me to grow as a writer. The practice analyzing and actively thinking through text I did will continue to benefit me whenever I need to write.*
In terms of my prediction and plan for time management that I talked about in my second post, "Calendar Reflection," I thought I might be proactive each week. It turned out that I did have as much time as I though I would, but I never felt like I did. Maybe college freedom made me spend way too much time on other things that I wanted to do - and not much of it was actually video games - leaving me to do my homework for long periods of time. Ultimately I knew I might do all my work on Saturdays, as I implied with my tone in that post, But it all worked out all right.
For the future, I think, as I said, I'll be all right as far as writing goes. It might seem like my work ethic is trash, but I do enough work, and in subjects I have an interest (and no mental barriers stopping me from hating what I have to do), I have and will put in much more time and effort, because I choose to study those things.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Reflection on Project 3
This post will go through a reflection, including what specifically I revised, and how it all went, as I completed project 3. It will take the format of a numbered list from Writing Public Lives.
1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
I mostly took some of the advise I got from the peer edits, a little at a time, and tried to work minor sentences to fit the feedback. In that sense, I added pictures and other elements to fit the genre better. I also felt like I got off track, but the edits brought me back, and I made the content relevant to a refutation argument.
2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
The main thing was staying true to my thesis throughout the op-ed. In doing this, it helped that other people read it, and could point out that I left it a bit, plus reading it myself after a week of having not thought about it helped.
3. What led you to these changes?
I guess just realizing that my thesis wasn't being adequately supported.
4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
They should help to build it, as a well structured essay is always more convincing, as it sounds like it's coming from an intelligent person. On the other hand, if it's poorly constructed, a reader would probably assume a) the topic wasn't important enough to give full attention to detail, and b) the writer wasn't smart enough to structure it properly, so why is their input valuable?
5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
Since now the whole piece is structured properly, it is all aimed at the target audience, rather than just the first couple paragraphs, followed by some drifting, wandering, rambles about space.
6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
Mostly for clarification, I revised some sentences to make more sense, like "However, Money is money - nothing is special about that which is given to NASA." as opposed to just skipping to "just because that money isn’t being spent on Earth, or that it’s spatially the furthest from helping with those problems..." things like this, I think just make my point a bit clearer.
7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
Hopefully, by eliminating the barriers (meaning confusing sentences, and unexplained ideas) to my audience, they can get a direct understanding of my argument, at which point it is up to if it is any good itself.
8. Did you have to reconsider the genre you are writing in?
I did, actually. I included captions for images, the font style, an end bio, and some other little things to make it look more like an LA Times op-ed.
9.How does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
It forces me to be aware of the things I kinda just did on autopilot. I guess that's pretty helpful, as if I can control those things, I'll be able to write well without even trying. But, for the most part, it just shows me I've got a long way to go before that is possible.
 |
| Penaud,Georgia. "NICO looks at himself" 2006 via wikimedia. Public Domain. |
1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
I mostly took some of the advise I got from the peer edits, a little at a time, and tried to work minor sentences to fit the feedback. In that sense, I added pictures and other elements to fit the genre better. I also felt like I got off track, but the edits brought me back, and I made the content relevant to a refutation argument.
2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
The main thing was staying true to my thesis throughout the op-ed. In doing this, it helped that other people read it, and could point out that I left it a bit, plus reading it myself after a week of having not thought about it helped.
3. What led you to these changes?
I guess just realizing that my thesis wasn't being adequately supported.
4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
They should help to build it, as a well structured essay is always more convincing, as it sounds like it's coming from an intelligent person. On the other hand, if it's poorly constructed, a reader would probably assume a) the topic wasn't important enough to give full attention to detail, and b) the writer wasn't smart enough to structure it properly, so why is their input valuable?
5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
Since now the whole piece is structured properly, it is all aimed at the target audience, rather than just the first couple paragraphs, followed by some drifting, wandering, rambles about space.
6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
Mostly for clarification, I revised some sentences to make more sense, like "However, Money is money - nothing is special about that which is given to NASA." as opposed to just skipping to "just because that money isn’t being spent on Earth, or that it’s spatially the furthest from helping with those problems..." things like this, I think just make my point a bit clearer.
7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
Hopefully, by eliminating the barriers (meaning confusing sentences, and unexplained ideas) to my audience, they can get a direct understanding of my argument, at which point it is up to if it is any good itself.
8. Did you have to reconsider the genre you are writing in?
I did, actually. I included captions for images, the font style, an end bio, and some other little things to make it look more like an LA Times op-ed.
9.How does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
It forces me to be aware of the things I kinda just did on autopilot. I guess that's pretty helpful, as if I can control those things, I'll be able to write well without even trying. But, for the most part, it just shows me I've got a long way to go before that is possible.
Publishing Public Argument
This post will contain the link to my final version of my op-ed for the Washington post "“Why spend so much in space?” Here’s why." as well as a bit of accompanying information about it.
 |
| No Author "Win" 3/14/2014 via Pixabay. Public Domain. |
1. Mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue below (space exploration BAD because Earth problems):
←-------------------------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 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 argument, for one, acknowledges, and tries to respond to the emotional pull of not wanting to abandon those in need, by citing examples of how NASA also helps those in need. Also, I took the stance that agreed that those in need deserve help, but showed that it doesn't have any impact on whether or not NASA's funding is justified.
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.)
__X__ 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
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.)
__X__ Appropriate use of humor for subject matter, platform/website, audience ("appropriate" being not much at all)
__X__ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point
__X__ 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
__X__ 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
__X__ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns
Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position
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.) - Maybe a text-based equivalent?
__X__ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments
__X__ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument
_N/A_ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)
Other: ---
6. Links to examples (OP-EDs from LA Times):
A common-sense solution to the Uber vs. taxi wars.
Think religion makes society less violent? Think again.
We should look less hard for cancer.
6. Links to examples (OP-EDs from LA Times):
A common-sense solution to the Uber vs. taxi wars.
Think religion makes society less violent? Think again.
We should look less hard for cancer.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Reflection on Project 3 Draft
This post is basically a progress report - for me, and for anyone who reads my posts - on where I stand for project 3. This means some details of what happened throughout the drafting process, and what's still left to do.
Firstly, I edited Katherine's and Mark's project 3 drafts. (the peer review sheets are here:
FOR KATHERINE - - - - FOR MARK)
1. Who edited your draft?
Clay and Breanna peer edited my draft (shout out to them for braving that battlefield).
2. How do you feel about the feedback you got? What helped, or was confusing?
Of course, any feedback and outside perspective are greatly appreciated, but what really helped is having specific areas to focus on, in terms of the structure, more than just simple rewording suggestions and other things of that sort. This helps the actual message instead of just the delivery (though that's important, too, but it doesn't require outside help as much). As for what was helpful, it pretty much all was, though the "audience" section is a bit confusing. I couldn't quite figure out how to judge the effectiveness of the argument on the audience specifically beyond if the argument was strong, but that was the main point of another section.
3.What aspects need the most work for the final draft?
I could probably work on every aspect (and I'm going to, of course) but the audience section and genre section should be my main focus. I just felt that they were a bit lacking. As a part of that, I will also restructure it to flow more, as I felt a bit directionless while writing, so having some time away from it and coming back should fix that.
4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of project 3?
I'm feeling like I can do this. At first I thought that an op-ed would be too short, or it would have to be too dense with vital things to say that I wouldn't be able to manage, but the peer reviews gave me hope that I will be able to manage it.
 |
| Longo, Wendy. "Looking Back" 5/13/2007 via flickr Attribution NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License. |
FOR KATHERINE - - - - FOR MARK)
1. Who edited your draft?
Clay and Breanna peer edited my draft (shout out to them for braving that battlefield).
2. How do you feel about the feedback you got? What helped, or was confusing?
Of course, any feedback and outside perspective are greatly appreciated, but what really helped is having specific areas to focus on, in terms of the structure, more than just simple rewording suggestions and other things of that sort. This helps the actual message instead of just the delivery (though that's important, too, but it doesn't require outside help as much). As for what was helpful, it pretty much all was, though the "audience" section is a bit confusing. I couldn't quite figure out how to judge the effectiveness of the argument on the audience specifically beyond if the argument was strong, but that was the main point of another section.
3.What aspects need the most work for the final draft?
I could probably work on every aspect (and I'm going to, of course) but the audience section and genre section should be my main focus. I just felt that they were a bit lacking. As a part of that, I will also restructure it to flow more, as I felt a bit directionless while writing, so having some time away from it and coming back should fix that.
4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of project 3?
I'm feeling like I can do this. At first I thought that an op-ed would be too short, or it would have to be too dense with vital things to say that I wouldn't be able to manage, but the peer reviews gave me hope that I will be able to manage it.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Draft of Public Argument
This post serves primarily as a link to my project 3 draft, my public argument on space exploration. It's still a draft, so, you know, it's not that great. But it's an op-ed, so it should be a bit short,and be opinionated, but if it is too short or opinionated, that's not good either. (also, the title could use some help)
Much like this drawing, my draft's got some basic shape, and just needs a good finishing, and it'll be in a museum in no time.
 |
| Children drawing. "Pegasus with large mane" 4/7/2015 via torange Attribution 4.0 International License. |
Considering Visual Elements
This post will be about the visual elements might consider including in my op-ed for project 3.
1. Is the theme or association that the image produces relevant to the theme of my argument?
I could definitely include an image that connotes the type of pathos that people think of when they think of Earthly problems. This way I could remind my readers why I'm writing about the disconnect between that and funding for space exploration.
2. Does the graph or chart clearly support a major point of my argument?
If I include a graph, it will probably be one showing the comparisons of national expenditures, which would support the point that NASA doesn't actually spend much, and that there are other programs that could be seen as more frivolous.
3. Is the image in close proximity to the argument that it is emphasizing?
I'll definitely put the images close to the points they illustrate. It only makes sense that they would go there, so the continuity isn't lost between ideas.
4. Do your eyes move easily from one section to another in the order you intended?
I don't think this will be too much of an issue, as it will mostly be a single-column body of text. However, I should make efforts to have the final design clear and flowing.
5. If your project contains large blocks of text, could they be broken up more effectively using text boxes, lines, headings, or images?
This is another thing I shouldn't have to worry about, the op-ed being a fairly short genre. However, I definitely don't want to go overboard, like I felt example 2 from my earlier post did. I just felt that there were too many images, and it looked a bit crowded. This is something I'll make sure to avoid.
6. Are your images placed or sequenced in the most convincing way?
I hadn't thought about the sequence of introducing the images, but I'll keep it in mind. I think introducing the pathos first, before showing it's disconnected, will be a good order. A second pass afterward, though, might be helpful.
 |
| Black, Les. "Boy Testing Eye Site" 4/20/2013 via flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. |
I could definitely include an image that connotes the type of pathos that people think of when they think of Earthly problems. This way I could remind my readers why I'm writing about the disconnect between that and funding for space exploration.
2. Does the graph or chart clearly support a major point of my argument?
If I include a graph, it will probably be one showing the comparisons of national expenditures, which would support the point that NASA doesn't actually spend much, and that there are other programs that could be seen as more frivolous.
3. Is the image in close proximity to the argument that it is emphasizing?
I'll definitely put the images close to the points they illustrate. It only makes sense that they would go there, so the continuity isn't lost between ideas.
4. Do your eyes move easily from one section to another in the order you intended?
I don't think this will be too much of an issue, as it will mostly be a single-column body of text. However, I should make efforts to have the final design clear and flowing.
5. If your project contains large blocks of text, could they be broken up more effectively using text boxes, lines, headings, or images?
This is another thing I shouldn't have to worry about, the op-ed being a fairly short genre. However, I definitely don't want to go overboard, like I felt example 2 from my earlier post did. I just felt that there were too many images, and it looked a bit crowded. This is something I'll make sure to avoid.
6. Are your images placed or sequenced in the most convincing way?
I hadn't thought about the sequence of introducing the images, but I'll keep it in mind. I think introducing the pathos first, before showing it's disconnected, will be a good order. A second pass afterward, though, might be helpful.
Project 3 Outline
This post will outline the content I'll need to include for project 3.
Introduction:
1. Connect the issue to your audience's world view:
This should be easy, because I'm trying to target people who currently think that the Earth is in too bad of a shape to fund space exploration. I can start off by acknowledging that point, and saying, "yes, it absolutely is, and people need to do stuff about it." But also, I can list off some of the ways space exploration has helped people in the past.
Body:
1. List out the major supporting arguments:
NASA's allowance is under one and a half a percent of the national budget (most people probably think it is a lot more).
There are other government programs, despite the amount of money they receive, that most would argue are more wasteful than NASA (so going after NASA is a bad place to start).
The nature of how the money is spent (off earth, whereas there are problems on earth), while rhetorically appealing (it sounds cool to say "why spend money in space when there are problems on Earth?"), doesn't matter.
2. List down major criticisms:
I honestly can't think of any beyond the emotional appeal of "it doesn't help those in dire need of help."
I guess someone could say that they really don't have any interest in anything beyond Earth, which is a valid opinion.
17 billion dollars a year is a lot of money.
3. Select your key support and rebuttal points.
I'll include all of them. They are all pretty important, and the rebuttal points I have there are all I could think of.
4. Write out a tentative topic sentence for each point:
+
NASA's annual budget is far lower than most people think.
NASA is not the program to cut.
We need to keep in mind what really matters when it comes to spending.
-
Absolutely, there are people in need of help, and money can go a lot of the way in helping.
It's possible that some think space exploration is a waste of time for no other reason than that it doesn't interest them.
NASA costs a lot of money to run.
5. Gather evidence:
Global crises:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-crisis-food-water-and-fuel-three-fundamental-necessities-of-life-in-jeopardy/9191
National budget:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf
6. Map
Conclusion:
4. Common ground:
Definitely common ground, because I absolutely agree that people need to do something about the rampant poverty, hunger, war, etc. that humans face. It's only that I don't think that cutting space exploration is the way to get the money for that.
 |
| 'gfpeck.' "Extra, Extra!" 7/30/2010 via flickr Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License. |
1. Connect the issue to your audience's world view:
This should be easy, because I'm trying to target people who currently think that the Earth is in too bad of a shape to fund space exploration. I can start off by acknowledging that point, and saying, "yes, it absolutely is, and people need to do stuff about it." But also, I can list off some of the ways space exploration has helped people in the past.
Body:
1. List out the major supporting arguments:
NASA's allowance is under one and a half a percent of the national budget (most people probably think it is a lot more).
There are other government programs, despite the amount of money they receive, that most would argue are more wasteful than NASA (so going after NASA is a bad place to start).
The nature of how the money is spent (off earth, whereas there are problems on earth), while rhetorically appealing (it sounds cool to say "why spend money in space when there are problems on Earth?"), doesn't matter.
2. List down major criticisms:
I honestly can't think of any beyond the emotional appeal of "it doesn't help those in dire need of help."
I guess someone could say that they really don't have any interest in anything beyond Earth, which is a valid opinion.
17 billion dollars a year is a lot of money.
3. Select your key support and rebuttal points.
I'll include all of them. They are all pretty important, and the rebuttal points I have there are all I could think of.
4. Write out a tentative topic sentence for each point:
+
NASA's annual budget is far lower than most people think.
NASA is not the program to cut.
We need to keep in mind what really matters when it comes to spending.
-
Absolutely, there are people in need of help, and money can go a lot of the way in helping.
It's possible that some think space exploration is a waste of time for no other reason than that it doesn't interest them.
NASA costs a lot of money to run.
5. Gather evidence:
Global crises:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-crisis-food-water-and-fuel-three-fundamental-necessities-of-life-in-jeopardy/9191
National budget:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf
6. Map
 |
| This is the coggle map I made to guide my writing of project 3 |
4. Common ground:
Definitely common ground, because I absolutely agree that people need to do something about the rampant poverty, hunger, war, etc. that humans face. It's only that I don't think that cutting space exploration is the way to get the money for that.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Analyzing My Genre
 |
| Breman, Joel. "Laboratorian was shown looking through a microscope at samples collected from the field free stock photograph" 3/7/2015 via publicdomainimages. Public domain. |
This post will answer basic question about the genre I'll be writing in for project 3. They will help me to understand better how I will need to write to fit withing the genre of an op-ed. The following are examples of op-ed's from various online sources.
Example 1 (LA Times)
Example 2 (NY Times)
Example 3 (Washington Post)
Example 4 (Washington Post)
Example 5 (NY Times)
Social context:
This genre is always set in a newspaper, either physical or online. This is because it is "opposite the editorials," meaning there have to be editorials to be opposite from.
The subject of the genre can really be anything. They are op-eds about everything someone can have an opinion on.
Anyone can use this genre. It's open to everyone to submit an op-ed, (except, I guess the editorial board, because they would just write an editorial), and then the editors can choose which ones they want to publish.
Usually, this genre is used to express someone's opinion, when they feel not enough people agree. The goal the writers can have could be anything from make a point of view known to start a riot to change something. Usually, it's just to inform the public of a point of view, and make them agree.
Rhetorical patterns of the genre:
Because the subject matter is so widely varied, the content included is, too. Depending on the particular subject, the author could include anything from personal stories to historical facts, statistics, or whatever fits the subject.
Again, because the subject matter varies a lot, so too will the uses of logos ethos and pathos. for example, in Example three, the op-ed is about the struggle of being a widow, so it naturally includes a lot of pathos to show that emotional struggle. on the other hand, Example two tries to convince the reader that religion doesn't make people non-violent, so it needs to rely on logos more heavily than others, as that is something that needs to be proven, not 'felt.'
The genre is typically pretty short (fewer than 750 words) so they don't have much room to develop in interesting or unique ways. More or less, they tend to introduce the topic in a short intro, and dive right into what they want to say. Then the conclusion is a pretty standard one, if but a little bit short. Overall, it's like a normal essay, but in a strict length constraint.
Most of them aren't too formal, and use "I" to remind the reader that it is an opinion, especially in example 3. other than that, nothing really stands out. There aren't many questions, or exclamations, likely because the authors only have a short amount of time to get what they need to say to the readers, which leaves no time to get 'cute' with their rhetoric.
The words usually aren't overly formal or academic, and the language is usually fairly simple, as the author aren't trying to show off how smart they are or confuse people, and they especially don't want anyone to not get what they are trying to say just because they don't understand the language. However, if the subject is technical enough, like in example 2, the language can get a bit more advanced.
Rhetorical patterns revealing social context:
The genre includes and excludes people at the discretion of the newspaper, so if the message is something the newspaper is against, it probably won't be published, and the author will have to find another with an agreeing view on the subject. ultimately, the genre goes along with the newspapers' biases.
The genre encourages the writers to express their opinions clearly and openly, and the readers to take everything with a grain of salt (as it is, after all, an opinion).
The values and beliefs are usually whatever goes along with what the publisher would hold. beyond that fairly vague description, it's probably safer not to assume anything beyond the basic things everyone agrees with, as the point of an op-ed is to reach a whole lot of people, who are hard to generalize.
This genre need supporting evidence, and a good amount of personal input from the author goes a long way in an opinion piece. Long-winded summaries and explanations of general things that are common knowledge, or really anything that doesn't move the piece along would be out of place in an op-ed, as the readers don't usually know what they are getting into before they read the title. This means that most of the readers probably won't have chosen to read about that particular subject until it was put right in front of them.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Considering Types
This post will decide on what kind of argument I will end up writing, and why.
My whole goal for this project is to refute a specific reason I've seen come up for not supporting space exploration, so the best type of argument for that is the refutation argument. In this style I can easily 'attack' that view, in the sense that I want to show that it's a bad one. I don't want to just explain why another person's argument supporting space exploration is good (evaluative argument). I also don't know what I could really argue if I just want to identify a cause o a problem (causal argument). And I also wouldn't feel perfectly comfortable just proposing a solution to the problem (Proposal argument).
 |
| 'o5com.' "Men Arguing" 8/25/2010 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
My Rhetorical Action Plan
This post will outline the important information I will need to keep track of while structuring my eventual public argument. (in the form of answers to a bunch of bulleted questions.) In essence, this is my plan of attack on project 3.
 |
| 'Worldslandinfo.com.' "Planning session" 12/9/2006 via flickr Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
Audience:
Knowledge: what does the audience know about the topic? How do they know the topic? Do they have certain dispositions that you will need to address?
The audience probably doesn't know all of the various ways space exploration benefits humanity (beyond just "oh, look, we've landed on another planet, cool"), or how little (relatively) it costs taxpayers. The main way the audience probably knows about this topic is from the media, which is true of most people (this is why they probably wont have a deep understanding of the whole situation; most people don't go out and research things they don't immediately support). A possible bias I'd like to address is that they will think that space exploration is not very beneficial to humanity.
Values: what do you know about the values, ideals, principles, or norms that members of the audience might hold?
The main thing is that members of the audience will value very highly helping those in need. So they will support spending on humanitarian aid, and other for-the-people kind of projects above space exploration.
Standards 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?
Logical arguments are always persuasive, so I'd like to include as many of those as possible. However, because the reason I think the audience is currently unsupportive of space exploration is primarily reliant on pathos, I really want to try to include a pathetic argument for space exploration to counteract it. Or I could at least put the logical appeals into more pathos-oriented terms.
Visual elements: what visual images or elements might your audience respond to? why?
Because my argument will have primarily logical appeals, graphs would go nicely with them.
Purpose: why is your audience reading your argument?
Firstly, because my title is going to be extremely clickbait-y. But really, I want them to see why I think despite whatever values they hold, space exploration is still worthy cause. I'm not sure how likely the audience will be to agree with my argument, but hopefully, as I'm trying to bring something new, I'll mention something they never thought of before, which will convince them.
Genre (an Op-Ed, for now, or maybe a column):
Here are examples of Op-Ed's: From LA Times, about religion and from the New York Times, about Isreal.
Here are examples of columns: From the AZ daily star, about Pima hall of fame and from NY Times about Heart disease.
What is the function of the genre/ why did you choose it?
The function of an Op-Ed is to share an opinion, or make a convincing argument within a relatively short piece of writing. (usually shorter than 750 words). A column is similar, but can have a stronger opinion, as the writer usually has ethos covered for them.
What is the setting of your genre? where could you see it being used?
In a magazine or newspaper "opposite the editorials" (Op-Ed). Or in the columns section of a periodical.
How might you use the Rhetorical appeals we have studied?
I will likely prioritize logos, then ethos, then pathos, unless I can come up with a strong Pathetic argument, which would be very useful.
What type of visual elements will you use in this genre?
Typically, visual elements were not accepted in Op-Ed pieces, but they are stating to be more accepted,like in the NYT example, in which case I would use graphs to illustrate my logical points. In columns, they don't seem to be as prevalent, so I'd have to think wisely about maybe a single one.
What kind of style will you use in this genre?
Semi-formal,and a bit academic, but too strictly that it seems too awkward. But I definitely don't want to send something out to potentially hundreds of thousands of people that reads as if I know them all.
Positive Reactions:
1. support for space exploration increases.
2. support for space exploration increases enough that people petition or vote for more of it.
3. support for space exploration increases enough that people start donating and contributing to private space exploration companies.
Negative Rebuttals:
1. "but still, even if space exploration is the greatest thing ever, what are we supposed to do about all the problems on earth?" -> surely there are other ways to fund Environmental/ humanitarian aid projects than to cut NASA's budget.
2. "How can you just ignore all of those poor starving people who could stay alive with less than a millionth of what we send into space?" -> well, It's not that I'm ignoring the, so much as space exploration doesn't have much to do with them, and isn't the thing to cut to make way for them.
3. "But aren't you extremely biased, as a space-enthusiast, and aerospace engineer-in-training?" -> well, yeah, but if an argument is logically sound, bias doesn't matter. Good reasons are still good no matter the source. It may affect ethos, but logos is ultimately the thing of most importance in an argument.
Analyzing Purpose
This post will provide information on the goal of my public argument, and possible outcomes.
 |
| This is my coggle cluster for progect 3 |
Really, the people my argument will be aimed at will be anyone who currently thinks that Space exploration is a waste of money that should be instead given to those in need. These are the only people who, after reading my argument, could start supporting space exploration. It's possible that someone who has never thought about whether they think space exploration is a good thing reads what I write, in which case, hopefully, they agree with me against what I see as the strongest argument against space exploration.
Analyzing Context
This post will answer 7 questions that will help me better understand the context important for project 3.
Yeah, that picture is a bit weird... I bet you wish you had some context to go with that...
 |
| Bielousov, Anton. "Muggle Quidditch Game in Vancouver 2" 5/6/2014 via wikimedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |
Aaaaaaaand that's why context is important.
1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?
Basically, there are two: "We should continue or increase funding for space exploration", and "we should stop spending anything on space exploration."
2. What are the major points of contention or disagreements among these perspectives?
Well, to start with, one thinks we should spend money on Space exploration, while the other thinks we should not. But behind that, the 'nay' side says it doesn't benefit humanity enough, whereas the 'yay' side claims it does.
3. what are the possible points of agreement or the possible common ground between these perspectives?
Both sides do want to benefit humanity (just by different means)
4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?
The 'yay' side seems to value scientific and technological advancement above most things, while the 'nay' side, primarily, seems to value humanitarian aid above that.
5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?
Pretty much every argument in this debate is meant to gain support for their respective sides, so they tel their audiences, "support this perspective."
6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue?why did you choose these?
When people argue against space exploration by claiming it wastes money that could be spent helping people in need, it is useful in that I have specific points to disagree with. This is more helpful than perspectives with which I'm in agreement, because in those cases, there's not much to say.
7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? why?
It's probably pretty arrogant of me to say this, but I don't think there is much threat to my argument, as it should be sound. however, the argument that goes "look at all these poor people that money could help, yet you're throwing into space???" is a strong pathos-heavy point, while there isn't really a pathos-heavy response for why we should explore space anyway.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Audience and Genre
This post will be about what specific audience groups I might want to read my text, when I eventually get around to writing it. I'll need to consider what reason I might have for creating such a text, so I know who might benefit most from it. It'll also include where I might want to write to reach those target audiences, and have example texts that reach that kind of audience.
 |
| Campbell, Justin. "Audience HDR" 11/24/2010 via flickr. Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License. |
Extended Annotated Bibliography
This is a link to the annotated bibliography for project 3. This Time around I'm participating actively, not just analyzing and commenting from the sidelines; put me in, Coach, I'm ready to play.
 |
| 'timetrax23.' "Library Books" 1/2/2007 via flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. |
Narrowing My Focus
This post will narrow the broad range of questions I generated for my last post, down to only a few that are most important to answer to continue my participation in this controversy.
Where in the world do the highest concentrations of space exploration supporters and opposers live?
 |
| Christaras, A. "Traffic Sign GR - KOK 2009 - k-5" 10/23/2010 via wikimedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic, and 1.0 Generic Licenses |
I think this question might give insight into what kinds of people hold which belief. For example, it might turn out that just the richest nations want to explore space ( which wouldn't bee too surprising) or, maybe it's evenly distributed around the world - who knows for sure?
What are some real, legitimate problems with space exploration, that cause serious reason not to continue space exploration?
This is a serious one, because I have yet to hear a reason that has made me think, " you know? That makes sense, I wonder if space exploration is worth it..." But it might be because i'm biased. If, however, I can find one, it would help my credibility, and I wouldn't be stuck in the dark.
What is the public opinion on space exploration?
I added this one ad hoc, because I don't think I'll be able to find anything on where people support each side from. But this one should give some hint as to how many people would be in my audience.
This is a serious one, because I have yet to hear a reason that has made me think, " you know? That makes sense, I wonder if space exploration is worth it..." But it might be because i'm biased. If, however, I can find one, it would help my credibility, and I wouldn't be stuck in the dark.
What is the public opinion on space exploration?
I added this one ad hoc, because I don't think I'll be able to find anything on where people support each side from. But this one should give some hint as to how many people would be in my audience.
Questions About Controversy
This post will be about what questions I need to find answers to for project three - participating and contributing to a public debate/controversy. To start with, I should say that I will talk about the space exploration debate.
Who?:
How exactly has NASA contributed to convincing people space exploration is the way to go?
Who really says space exploration is not worth it? Is it at all popular to say so?
Is there any large organization that is anti-space exploration, like NASA is pro-?
What?:
What do anti-space exploration arguers see that is wrong with what pro-space exploration points?
What is legitimately wrong with what pro-space exploration supporters say? Is there anything?
What actual biases are there that determine what people will think about this debate?
When?:
Did it start in 1969 with the moon landings? Was it actually before then?
When (if ever) did one side have an upper-hand in terms of the available information in the debate?
When will it eeeeeeeeeend?
Where?:
Has there ever been a physical location for this debate? What was it?
Where in the world - geographically, who supports which sides more?
Demographically, who supports which sides more?
How?:
What is the average opinion on the subject?
What is the generally-supported side the media express?
How do locations of this debate break down by time frame and website?
 |
| Bellucci, Marco. "Question Mark" 8/4/2005 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
How exactly has NASA contributed to convincing people space exploration is the way to go?
Who really says space exploration is not worth it? Is it at all popular to say so?
Is there any large organization that is anti-space exploration, like NASA is pro-?
What?:
What do anti-space exploration arguers see that is wrong with what pro-space exploration points?
What is legitimately wrong with what pro-space exploration supporters say? Is there anything?
What actual biases are there that determine what people will think about this debate?
When?:
Did it start in 1969 with the moon landings? Was it actually before then?
When (if ever) did one side have an upper-hand in terms of the available information in the debate?
When will it eeeeeeeeeend?
Where?:
Has there ever been a physical location for this debate? What was it?
Where in the world - geographically, who supports which sides more?
Demographically, who supports which sides more?
How?:
What is the average opinion on the subject?
What is the generally-supported side the media express?
How do locations of this debate break down by time frame and website?
Reflection on Project 2
This post will be the last reflection on any part of project 2 I do. Specifically, I will reflect on the revisions I made to turn the piece of trash that was my first draft into the polished piece of trash that is my final draft. (I mean that jokingly, of course: HA Ha ha hmm...)
1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
As per the guidelines, my introduction and conclusion were completely scrapped, and rewritten. for more on those specifically, see my post on my introduction and conclusion. In the rest of the essay, I made sure to not just analyze the text, but to expand an apply it to arguments in my field as a whole, my text being only an example.
2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
Originally, my thesis (and consequently, my whole structure) was a rhetorical analysis and no more. I didn't in any way address the fact that it was for a specific audience and purpose. But the for final draft I did.
3. What led to those changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
Oh, wow, that's exactly what I talked about in point 2... Yup: exactly those things. My essay didn't 'follow the prompt' as it would be described in high school; it missed the entire point of the assignment.
4. How do those changes affect your credibility as an author?
I'm not sure my credibility was really affected, but my relevance to what I was supposed to be doing benefited. Because before, no one from the fictitious audience would have been able to follow what I was talking about.
5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
I chose to write almost directly to the audience, so they would have a much clearer understanding of what I was saying, and why it's important. (I also tried to write a bit explicitly)
6. How did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I went through to make sure that my sentences made sense. Any time i came across a sentences that was overly long or felt disconnected, I broke it up or clarified it so it would not become a hindrance to my essay.
7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
Well, anytime a sentence is cleared up, or made less dense, it's easier to understand, but I feel that I also kept in mind that I needed to make my thesis clear overall, not just whatever individual point I was revising. This way nothing should seem too disconnected, and everything should help the reader with seeing the thesis.
8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
This one I felt pretty good about. I knew what I was supposed to do - sort of - I just couldn't. In that sense I still knew the structure underneath, just not everything else.
9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
Like looking in a mirror, it helps me see things about my self/writing process that I would be able to otherwise. I always thought I was a terrible writer, but I guess I'm not so bad - that's not to say that I'm necessarily good at writing, but... you know... And confidence is an important asset in any situation.
 |
| 'LadyDragonflyCC - >;<'. "Neverending Mirror" 5/10/2010 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic Licence. |
1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
As per the guidelines, my introduction and conclusion were completely scrapped, and rewritten. for more on those specifically, see my post on my introduction and conclusion. In the rest of the essay, I made sure to not just analyze the text, but to expand an apply it to arguments in my field as a whole, my text being only an example.
2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
Originally, my thesis (and consequently, my whole structure) was a rhetorical analysis and no more. I didn't in any way address the fact that it was for a specific audience and purpose. But the for final draft I did.
3. What led to those changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
Oh, wow, that's exactly what I talked about in point 2... Yup: exactly those things. My essay didn't 'follow the prompt' as it would be described in high school; it missed the entire point of the assignment.
4. How do those changes affect your credibility as an author?
I'm not sure my credibility was really affected, but my relevance to what I was supposed to be doing benefited. Because before, no one from the fictitious audience would have been able to follow what I was talking about.
5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
I chose to write almost directly to the audience, so they would have a much clearer understanding of what I was saying, and why it's important. (I also tried to write a bit explicitly)
6. How did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I went through to make sure that my sentences made sense. Any time i came across a sentences that was overly long or felt disconnected, I broke it up or clarified it so it would not become a hindrance to my essay.
7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
Well, anytime a sentence is cleared up, or made less dense, it's easier to understand, but I feel that I also kept in mind that I needed to make my thesis clear overall, not just whatever individual point I was revising. This way nothing should seem too disconnected, and everything should help the reader with seeing the thesis.
8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
This one I felt pretty good about. I knew what I was supposed to do - sort of - I just couldn't. In that sense I still knew the structure underneath, just not everything else.
9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
Like looking in a mirror, it helps me see things about my self/writing process that I would be able to otherwise. I always thought I was a terrible writer, but I guess I'm not so bad - that's not to say that I'm necessarily good at writing, but... you know... And confidence is an important asset in any situation.
Rhetorical Analysis Guide: the Final Draft
Well, here it is: the draft we've all been waiting for... the final one. The text I'm writing right now is only to bulk up this link so there's no chance of anyone missing it. Yup a big block of text, all meant to be a single, giant link to my final draft. That's all this is. I don't even know why your'e reading this; go read my final draft by clicking this link!
This is a link to the text I analyzed to demonstrate how arguments in the field of space-science are constructed.
' |
| 'kilgarron.'"Jumping for Joy" 6/5/213 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
This is a link to the text I analyzed to demonstrate how arguments in the field of space-science are constructed.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Revised Conclusion
Just like my post about the introduction, this post will follow along with what I did after I threw my conclusion in a fire (metaphorically).
Firstly, I made myself forget that had even written a conclusion to start with. I tried to go for the "look forward" strategy from the student's guide page 56. I think I did alright, if informally. I also made sure to mention how my main points relate to looking forward. Also, I kept it relevant to my audience: the newbies in my major who need help.
The original piece (of poop)... For real. this was garbage. I had no idea how to write a conclusion; I put some completely random words down and they happened to make grammatical sense:
Firstly, I made myself forget that had even written a conclusion to start with. I tried to go for the "look forward" strategy from the student's guide page 56. I think I did alright, if informally. I also made sure to mention how my main points relate to looking forward. Also, I kept it relevant to my audience: the newbies in my major who need help.
 |
| Berruguete, Pedro. "St. Dominic de Guzman and the Albigensians (1499)" 2/18/2015 via wikimedia. Public Domain. |
The original piece (of poop)... For real. this was garbage. I had no idea how to write a conclusion; I put some completely random words down and they happened to make grammatical sense:
This text is pretty representative of the field in terms of the proportional weight of logos ethos and pathos. Generally speaking, texts on science- and technology- based topics need to be founded on logos and ethos first, and rarely on pathos. This is true for the better examples, at least.Now for the conclusion 2.0:
You’ve seen how this particular author constructed her argument, and what made it effective. There are, of course other writers and speakers, and they will construct their arguments in slightly different ways. Those small differences, however, won’t be as important as the major themes we explored in this analysis, which should be consistent. Now it’s time for you to read other examples and analyze their merits, and even construct your own arguments, all the while keeping in mind that ethos and logos are typically far more important that pathos in our field. Never again will you be just a “gullible Gary” when it comes to someone trying to convince you of anything without those necessary components of scientific persuasion.
Revised Introduction
This post will follow along with what I did after I threw my introduction in the trash bin (metaphorically).
Firstly, I got rid of the overly explanatory style I had originally tried. It was just too much information that I ultimately never mentioned again. Next, I tried to make a good hook: I thought, "Hey, Mars One's mission statement is thought-provoking enough on it's own, I'll just use that!" Lastly, I made a deliberate effort to gear the essay toward the fictitious newbies in my field who need my help.
So, I actually had three introductory paragraphs, because I wanted to introduce the entire Rhetorical situation. However, this is not going to cut it. I think I'll have to just mention the relevant parts as they become relevant throughout the essay. I was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off on my first attempt; it was just so watered-down, and empty... I just... I'm sorry:
 |
| 'Mad cherub.' "Trash Bin" 2/28/2007 via wikimediea. Attribution 1.0 Generic License. |
First things first, Mars One is a dutch organization that got a lot of attention and good publicity after it announced plans to land human colonizers on Mars by 2025, a claim they still hold to, according to their website. There are three main people to be aware of: Elmo Keep, the author of “Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters,” Joseph Roche, a former NASA researcher who applied to the program, and Bas Lansdorp, the CEO of Mars One. In her article, Keep attempts to expose Mars One for what it is to supporters, reporters, and space enthusiasts, primarily through logical and ethical appeals, while ignoring pathetic ones, which is appropriate, considering the field is science and technology oriented. She has support from Roche, who spoke out against the company based on his experience in the selection process, and she has written an article on an interview response with Lansdorp.
The audience for her article is, as a sort of news article, somewhat oriented for the general public. But more specifically, it is geared toward anyone who may have been excited about or supportive of Mars One, because the purpose of the article is to show what the situation really is. She wants to show that what they might be supporting is something that doesn’t really exist. She also mentions her disappointment in the general media for their lack of coverage of the new information and continued praise for Mars One’s original statements. She says, “Most egregiously, many media outlets continue to report that Mars One received applications from 200,000 people who would be happy to die on another planet — when the number it actually received was 2,761” [1]. Because she mentions this, and connotes her disapproval, one can assume that she wants to tell them to change, and start reporting the truth, so the article could also be addressed to those media outlets. In context, this article covers new information about a prominent and exciting program that has come out, which casts a lot of doubt on the feasibility of its success. The general audience would mostly react to this with simple interest. It’s unlikely that too many people would emotionally work up a bias against Keep, so it’s safe for her to assume and write to a level-headed audience.
The author of the article, as already stated, is Elmo Keep, but in a way, because she borrows so much from Roche’s report, he is almost like a second author, at least in the sense that his ideas are expressed throughout the text. While keep doesn’t have so much face-value credibility to her background, Roche does, as a former NASA researcher, and assistant professor. But neither of these backgrounds are ones that one would assume to be biased against a space exploration company. Rather, as space enthusiasts, they would more likely want to support one, so they have the benefit of having at least the appearance of a legitimate purpose, rather than just bashing on a company they don’t like.Now for the new-and-improved version of my intro:
Mars One is going to send people 140 million miles away, to Mars… One-way… Within one decade from now… Or, as Elmo Keep, the author of “Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters,” suggests: it will try, but will probably just fall on its face. She’ll use almost entirely logical and ethical appeals, while she neglects pathos, to convince you of this, too. This is because that’s exactly how a science- or technology- based argument is supposed to be constructed. Keep will do well to make her article convincing, as she implicitly takes in to account both the characteristics of her audience and subject matter of her article itself. After we go through Keep’s example, and deconstruct exactly how she does this, you will be able to recognize the conventions of constructing an argument in this field. This will allow you to spot weak arguments, in addition to being able to construct your own, stronger arguments.
Punctuation, Part 1
This post will describe the topics in the "punctuation" section in rules for writers that I chose to explore. They are semicolons, quotation marks, and end punctuation.
Semicolons (page 314)
Everyone always misuses semicolons, or at least knows they will, and rewrites theirs sentences to avoid having to use one. Yes, everyone. But now I'm going to do that a little less often, because I read a short chapter on how to use them. I learned that they should never be used in addition to a conjunction, like "or," "and," or "but." However, if those conjunctions are missing, one can add a semicolon instead, so long as the connection between the clauses is clear enough; however, a conjunction would be better if they are not.
Quotation marks (page 326)
A couple of interesting points I've already used are: Words used as words in a sentence (referring to the word itself, not using the word's meaning in the sentence) should go inside quotation marks, like in the semicolon paragraph I wrote; also, punctuation almost always goes inside of the quotation marks, again, like in the last paragraph.
End punctuation (page 333)
I had always rewritten a sentence when I ended one with an abbreviation that had a period in it, like p.m. But now I know that it's OK, and that I just have to treat it like a normal period. I also didn't know that it's possible to ask a question and use a period instead of a question mark. It just needs to a formally constructed one like "Would you please stop that." It still seems weird, so I don't think I'll use that one much, but it's cool to know.
Reflection:
I peer-edited Katherine's and Sam's rough drafts.
I found the first instance of a long quote that could be set off by indentation in Katherine's draft. I suggested that she look at the rules for writer page on it for herself, because ultimately it's her decision what to do; I just offered my advice that it should:
“There’s a saying that if you come home from vacation and your front door is unlocked and your couch cushions are askew and the lamp is tilted a little and you go into your bedroom and find your jewelry’s gone, the Chinese were there. If you come home from vacation, your door’s locked and nothing’s moved and you go into your bedroom and your safe is still locked but you open it and your jewelry’s stolen, the Russians were there.”
Also, it's important that this was in sort of a gray-zone, where either way could work (it wasn't too short, nor was it too long). It's not necessary to indent long-ish quotes, and this one is only sort of long.
The following examples are from Sam's draft.
"...is up 50%”, meaning..." In this example, I corrected the punctuation that was outside of the quotation marks. It's not something that everyone knows, and I'm sure I'll see it a lot throughout my life now that I know.
"...that 'two-thirds of big companies surveyed' had..." this example shows that he knows what's what when it comes to the necessity of punctuation when the quote fits into the grammatical structure of the sentence: there is no necessity for punctuation.
 |
| McClure, Darin. "Punctuation Saves Lives" 9/30/2011 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
Semicolons (page 314)
Everyone always misuses semicolons, or at least knows they will, and rewrites theirs sentences to avoid having to use one. Yes, everyone. But now I'm going to do that a little less often, because I read a short chapter on how to use them. I learned that they should never be used in addition to a conjunction, like "or," "and," or "but." However, if those conjunctions are missing, one can add a semicolon instead, so long as the connection between the clauses is clear enough; however, a conjunction would be better if they are not.
Quotation marks (page 326)
A couple of interesting points I've already used are: Words used as words in a sentence (referring to the word itself, not using the word's meaning in the sentence) should go inside quotation marks, like in the semicolon paragraph I wrote; also, punctuation almost always goes inside of the quotation marks, again, like in the last paragraph.
End punctuation (page 333)
I had always rewritten a sentence when I ended one with an abbreviation that had a period in it, like p.m. But now I know that it's OK, and that I just have to treat it like a normal period. I also didn't know that it's possible to ask a question and use a period instead of a question mark. It just needs to a formally constructed one like "Would you please stop that." It still seems weird, so I don't think I'll use that one much, but it's cool to know.
Reflection:
I peer-edited Katherine's and Sam's rough drafts.
I found the first instance of a long quote that could be set off by indentation in Katherine's draft. I suggested that she look at the rules for writer page on it for herself, because ultimately it's her decision what to do; I just offered my advice that it should:
“There’s a saying that if you come home from vacation and your front door is unlocked and your couch cushions are askew and the lamp is tilted a little and you go into your bedroom and find your jewelry’s gone, the Chinese were there. If you come home from vacation, your door’s locked and nothing’s moved and you go into your bedroom and your safe is still locked but you open it and your jewelry’s stolen, the Russians were there.”
Also, it's important that this was in sort of a gray-zone, where either way could work (it wasn't too short, nor was it too long). It's not necessary to indent long-ish quotes, and this one is only sort of long.
The following examples are from Sam's draft.
"...is up 50%”, meaning..." In this example, I corrected the punctuation that was outside of the quotation marks. It's not something that everyone knows, and I'm sure I'll see it a lot throughout my life now that I know.
"...that 'two-thirds of big companies surveyed' had..." this example shows that he knows what's what when it comes to the necessity of punctuation when the quote fits into the grammatical structure of the sentence: there is no necessity for punctuation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)