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.

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.

'Mad cherub.' "Trash Bin" 2/28/2007 via wikimediea.
Attribution 1.0 Generic License.

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:

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.

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.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

This post serves entirely as a link to my draft for the rhetorical analysis essay. For peer edit, Please feel free to be as harsh as you want to be, I promise to only take it constructively. You can literally say that I'm an idiot, as long as you explain what in my paper made you say so, and I won't even be mad.



**I realized I should give a link to the article I'm analyzing, so here you go.**

Practicing Summary & Paraphrase

This post is to practice the summarizing and paraphrasing techniques I'll have to use in writing my final version of my Rhetorical analysis. After all, practice makes perfect, as they say.

Catron, Scott. "Piano Practice Hands" 10/20/2010 via wikimedia.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

Original source:

"So, here are the facts as we understand them: Mars One has almost no money. Mars One has no contracts with private aerospace suppliers who are building technology for future deep-space missions. Mars One has no TV production partner. Mars One has no publicly known investment partnerships with major brands. Mars One has no plans for a training facility where its candidates would prepare themselves. Mars One’s candidates have been vetted by a single person, in a 10-minute Skype interview." 

from "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters"

My Paraphrase of Original Source:

[11] We hear Keep explain the list of problems with Mars One to essentially be that they lied both about their funds and sources of funding, which they claimed to have, but apparently do not, that Mars One is on their own in terms of technological development, that Mars One is not equipped to train any of the applicants for the mission that they announced would begin soon, and that their selection process far less than an adequate measure of an astronaut's fitness for space travel.

My Summary of the Original Source:

[11] Keep describes how Mars One has either lied to (or kept secret from) the public about their lack of funds and funding, lack of business partnerships, lack of training facilities, and lack of adequate standards for astronaut selection.

(in the bibliography:)

[11]           E. Keep. "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters." Internet: https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously-flawed-project-2dfef95217d3 [Mar 16, 2015].

Project 2 Outline

Cherup, Erica. ""Chalk" Outline" 6/4/2009 via flickr.
Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

This post will be an outline for the upcoming rhetorical analysis on "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How it's Ripping off Supporters". It will be modeled after the “Sections of the Paper” section in Writing Public Lives on pages 122-5.

I have never liked writing introductions (or conclusions, for that matter), but like it says, for this genre, it is important because it needs to set up my particular perspective on the text. It isn't enough to just introduce the text, because there is far more to the analysis than that.

Even more than introductions, I never used to write conclusions. I would always either stop after my last body paragraph, or, if a conclusion was required, literally rewrite (maybe reword) my thesis as a one-sentence conclusion statement. I guess I fell for the old myth the reading talked about, that that is all a conclusion is (page 125). I'll have to come up with something to write in the conclusion, which ill be pretty hard since I've never done so before. Oh, well; there's a first time for everything.

Outline:

• Introduction

• Thesis (the analytical claim): The author attempts to expose Mars One for what it is to supporters, reporters, and space enthusiasts, primarily through logical and ethical appeals, which is appropriate considering the field, topic, and context of the issue (support for the analytical claim) (it's science-y and professional).
•  Background on topic (probably put this before thesis)

• How did the info get out
• What is Mars One 
• Who are the people involved 

• Body 

• Topic 1: the rhetorical situation (kind of a second intro)

• Who is the audience
• Who really is the author
• What is the context
• Also include the cultural values/beliefs/assumptions

• Topic 2: Ethos

• Ethos is important for her to establish, and she does so. 

• A NASA researcher comes out from the Mars One selection process, claiming it's flawed and a rip off. (credible person)
•  Direct quotes and personal stories, and an interview with the CEO, with direct counterarguments, then counter-counterarguments.
• Why, given the RS... 

• Topic 3: Pathos

• Pathos is not important for her to use, here's the little amount she does, and that's it; that's all she needed to use.

• The few things she does to appeal to emotion (like depict the company as dishonest entity)
• Why it's not important,and why she didn't use it too much, given the RS...

• Topic 4: Logos

• Logos is important for her to use, and she does (maybe not as much as ethos?) 

•  Here are examples (statistics, and numbers of falsified information)...
•  Here's why that's good to include, given the RS...

• Conclusion

• Here's what I think of these things from my personal reading of the text...
• Here's what I think she could have done differently...
• This is why what she did was effective... 

Draft Thesis Statements

This post will briefly explore some possible thesis statements for my upcoming rhetorical analysis. This includes possible routes I could take with them, and what I would be able to cover without going off topic.

Nitsckie, Wesley. "A Thinking Man" 3/3/2011 via flickr
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

1.

Considering the rhetorical situation, the author's favoring of ethos and logos appeals over pathos are more appropriate that if pathos were more stressed.

This statement covers the Rhetorical strategies, so I'll have plenty to talk about for them, but the rest of the analysis will come from explaining why this is, and what the rhetorical situation is. I don't think, however, that it is specific enough. It could still work for a rough, working thesis statement that would change when I can see my argument from my full paper.

2.

The author attempts to expose Mars One for what it is primarily through logical and ethical appeals, which is appropriate considering the field topic and context of the issue.

This one, I think, is still a bit vague, but less so, and it also still leaves room for the analysis on the rhetorical strategies and situations that the other one has. Again, it should work, considering I can rework and reword it once I've written the whole analysis. Still, it may be too vague.


Reflection:

From reading Michael's post  and Clay's post on thesis statements, I just realized that these drafts are exactly that: drafts. They, just like the rest of the paper, are going to be reworked, and chopped up, and rearranged to make more sense and have more value to the paper as a whole. Reading my peers' posts made me relax about whether the thesis statement I choose will be good enough, because I think that Ill be able to do the analysis, then make a good thesis statement afterward.

Analyzing My Audience

This post will take into account the audience I am writing for, in order to better aim my writing.
It will be responses to the bullet list of questions in student's guide on page 41.

Hunt, Tara. "Audience" 9/9/2013 via flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

• For whom am I writing? What are their beliefs and assumptions?

I'm supposed to be writing for fictitious students in my major, to explain how a person in my field constructs an arguments, but technically, my audience is all of you guys, my classmates. But really, it's the new students in my field.

Since they came into the field, they might believe, like I do, that new scientific endeavors are awesome.

They also might assume that their own field is immune to any kind of negative event. By this I mean they might have an overly optimistic view of the field of space science, thinking that it's only awesome stuff.

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

Directly because of the possible assumptions I mentioned, the audience may think that the author of the text I'm analyzing is just out to bash on a super cool program. I will need to explain the explicit reasons why the author says what she does, and hopefully the audience will understand beyond just a face-value interpretation of what they think.

• What will they want to know?

They should want to know what reasons the author has for, as they might perceive it, buzz-killing an exiting program. Also, whether those reasons are valid.

• How might they react to my argument?

They might have a bit of skepticism, which makes ethos a more important strategy.

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

I should acknowledge that I, too, really like this kind of thing; everybody does. However, beliefs based on wishful thinking are not justified. I mean that just wanting it to be true that a company is doing cool stuff doesn't mean that it can't actually be sketchy.

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

I think just mentioning that these things definitely seem awesome should convey the fact that I think so.

Cluster of "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How it's Ripping off Supporters"

This post serves mainly as a link to my cluster diagram for the text I'll analyze.
My cluster starts off with the text, then branches into the three categories we were given to make sure to include, then those split further to describe them.

My Coggle cluster for this post

Here is a link to the cluster on Coggle.