Reflection on Open Letter Draft

I will reflect on peer reviews of my draft of Project 4. I peer reviewed Ayra and Brandon's rough drafts.

Oregon's Mt. Hood Territory "Mt. Hood reflected in Mirror Lake, Oregon" n.d. via Wikipedia. Public Domain

This draft was brutal. After reading all the comments, I started a new Word document because I needed to change it so much. They both said the same things about my level of formality, clarity, and purpose. I had to take focus off of my high school experience in English and focus more on my experience in this class more. I didn't even realize I had so much about high school in my rough draft, so it's good that they caught that. That feedback was critical to my final draft.

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

Yes, I gave honest feedback on how this course has affected me as a writer.

2. Did you provide analysis of your experiences, assignments, or concepts you have learned?

I gave several examples of how I applied my knowledge throughout the semester.

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

Yes, I put hyperlinks in the letter that links to my writing.

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

Yes, I gave reason why I made the choices I did and determined whether they were effective or not.

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

Yes, I have terms like "procrastinate", "genre", "revision", etc.

Draft of Open Letter

Here is the rough draft of my open letter.

Jefferson, Thomas "Declaration of Independence Draft" via Wikipedia. Public Domain.

I think I tried to tie in too many aspects of the semester into each paragraph and I didn't even try to split them up yet but let me know how you think I should split it up. Also let me know if I'm missing conventions of the genre. I looked at the conventions only briefly so I may have missed something.

I peer reviewed Ayra and Brandon's rough drafts.

Reflecting More on My Writing Experiences

I will reflect some more on my writing experience.

Kim, Jonathan "Writing" 3/26/07 via Flickr.com. NonCommerical 2.0 Generic.

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

My biggest challenge was finding the patience to do all the weekly work. There was usually an exhausting amount of work every week that took more patience than most classes to get done.

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

My time management skills are okay but they could be better. I spent a lot of time on Saturday getting a lot of work done so maybe I should have made time to do work during the week. My writing skills are weak on rough drafts. I got my main idea across and my evidence written down on rough drafts but I depended heavily on peer review to make my final draft good. On project 2, I had to do the most editing. That rough draft was especially bad, not even peer review could save it. It ended up being my most successful project, so I guess my editorial skills are good.

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

Genre analysis was a huge part of this class. Understanding the conventions of the genre allows the writer to mimic it the best they can and therefore make the piece as effective as possible.

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

There are plenty of helpful skills from this course that I will use and build upon in the future including genre analysis, rhetorical situation analysis, time management, and editing skills.

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

My most effective moment was editing project 2 from the piece of garbage it was to the rhetorical analysis it should have been the whole time.

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

My least effective moment was drafting project 2 because I didn't read the prompt carefully enough, so its purpose was totally off.

Revisiting My Writing Process

I will reflect on how my writing process and time management changed throughout the semester in this post.

Gandy, Dave "Calendar font awesome" n.d. via Wikipedia, Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0  Unported

I will start by reflecting on my writing process. Before this class, I was a procrastinator and I was really good at it. To an extent, my time management skills are still in the procrastinator category but not my writing process. This class required a lot of pre-planning to our projects that I wouldn't normally do if left to my own devices. The required work was a mix of heavy planner, heavy reviser, and sequential composer. I am none of those things but there are some aspects that I will take moving forward.

I can say I'm going to make Coggles and outlines from now on, but I'd be lying. Honestly, the most important part of the planning phase for me is the annotated bibliography. My college is engineering, which will usually require evidence in writing, making the annotated bibliography the most important. I might make a quick outline if the piece I need to write is substantial just to organize evidence before writing. Revising was another huge part that worked out for me. We had peer reviews in high school but most students would go for the bare minimum, which didn't result in helpful peer reviews. This class had a much more thorough peer review process and it certainly helped make the final draft as best as it could be.

My time management skills improved from this class. My writing process and time management were one in the same before the class, meaning I had to fit schoolwork into my schedule the day before it was due rather than do what I can when I can. At the beginning of the semester, I was good at getting work done when I could but that phased out quickly. I ended up doing most if not all the weekly work on Saturday. So how did my time management skills improve? Saturday used to be a day I enjoyed, so all the fun things of the week piled up on that day. I learned that Saturday is a day to do work, so I dispensed my free time throughout the week. Homework in other classes never ended up on Saturday but took up the time during the week I had planned for English, making Saturday the perfect day for English. I prefer having free time throughout the week so I will keep this time management strategy moving forward.

Reflection on Project 3

In this post, I reflect on project 3 by answering the questions on page 520 of Writing Public Lives.

Sullivan, Matthew "Something_to_see_here_3" 8/18/07 via Flickr.com. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

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

I added content to the conclusion and the paragraph before the conclusion, I added a title, and grammatical issues were corrected.

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

The changes done in the last two paragraphs put a heavier emphasis on the point that both sides of this debate need to work together to make this issue better. This appeals to a wider range of readers and takes heat away from this argument to try to do something productive.

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

The purpose was always there, it was just underdeveloped. I was losing momentum toward the end of my rough draft and I just wanted to be done so it was half-hearted the first time through.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as a writer?

This ending appeals to a wider audience and makes me more moderate as a writer. It shows that my purpose is to make this problem better and I chose a side that I think can best address the issue.

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

My audience is against animal testing so taking a moderate purpose is going to appeal to them more than simply telling them they're wrong.

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

I changed some sentences to be shorter because they were run-ons. I was just hauling out a rough draft and run-ons happen quite frequently for me, especially when I try to get ideas out quickly. This change makes my paper more professional, which is a big part of my genre.

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

I don't think it helps the audience understand my purpose better but it certainly makes my paper easier to read.

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

No, I stuck closely to the conventions of my genre in the rough draft so I didn't have to change anything in that regard for the final draft.

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

Reflection lets me analyze where my weak points are as a writer and take steps toward strengthening those points.

Publishing Public Argument

Here is the final draft of my public argument. Question 2 is different for mine because of the approach I took at the end. I want people to understand that alternatives to animal testing are not ready to replace but I urge the development of alternatives in the end. So my argument doesn't aim to make people change sides of the argument but rather accept reality and do what they can to change it.

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

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

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

for testing                                                                                                                    against                                                                                                                                       testing

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

for testing                                                                                                                    against                                                                                                                                       testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

         ___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:

I refute the point that alternatives to animal testing should replace testing using sources. This isn't exactly a new approach but it's fresher than most arguments we see for animal testing. At the end, I propose that both sides of this argument cooperate to develop alternatives in the future using common ground.

5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employedi n 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.)

                    _____ 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

                    _____ 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.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    _____ Other: 

Logical or rational appeals

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

                    __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

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

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

                    __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

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

                    _____ Other: 

6. Below, provide us with working hyperlinks to THREE good examples of the genre you've chosen to write in. These examples can come from Blog Post 11.3 or they can be new examples. But they should all come from the same specific website/platformand should demonstrate the conventions for your piece:

After searching for a while, I could not find a specific website that publishes research papers like the one I wanted to make. This kind of thing would show up on a database but I struggled to find an example of this genre on multiple databases. Here are some examples that capture the general idea.

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

Here are my peer reviews for Kelly and Isabel's articles.

ekamanganese "Pond Reflection" 5/27/08 via deviantart.com. Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0

1. Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft?

Morgan is the only reviewer at the time I wrote this.

2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received? Be explicit and clear. Tell me what helped or what confused you about the feedback you got.

Most of the feedback was helpful. I tend to write wordy sentences and a lot of the corrections on the draft itself helped to reduce that. From the rubric feedback, there is not much I will do to improve the Purpose and Argumentation sections. Those two sections got relatively high scores. There was concern that my audience may not know all that I write about in the text (i.e. micro-dosing) and that needs to be reevaluated.

3. What aspects of Project 3 need to most work going forward [Audience, Purpose, Argumentation, or Genre]? How do you plan on addressing these areas?

Audience and Genre did not receive acceptable scores. I will address the audience by clarifying any vocabulary word that I think my audience may not know. Genre received a lower score because I cited things in ACS. I will not change that. I do need to add a title but I decided to save that for the final draft because laziness set in toward the end of my rough draft.

4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?

My project is going well. My rough draft requires less revision work than previous projects needed. My genre is pretty boring compared to the ones that I peer edited but I don't really have the creativity to make my project visually appealing nor will I need those skills in an engineering career.

Draft of Public Argument

Here's the link to my Rough Draft of Project 3

Reneman "DRAFT ICON" 2/24/13 via Wikipedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.

This is the strongest draft I've created yet. It is a research paper, so don't expect to read something super exciting. The hook is weak and the thesis is a bit wordy, but beyond that, the first three paragraphs are good in my opinion. I burned out near the end of the third paragraph so my last two paragraphs are short.

Considering Visual Elements

I will consider visual elements in this post.

Smallman12q "A truncated bar graph" 6/28/12 via Wikipedia. Public Domain. 

Does the image inform or emphasize my argument in an important way, or does it seem superficial or unrelated to my argument?

For my genre, the only images that would help my argument are charts or graphs. Even then, most statistics on animal testing are estimations that vary greatly so presenting data with a high margin of error would not help my argument.

If the image is a graph or chart, does it clearly support a major point of my argument of is it superfluous?

As I stated in the last question, the data are estimations that vary greatly. If I try to use a data point without its huge range, that would harm my credibility and the credibility of my argument. Most data will not be able to clearly support one of my major points.

Is the image is close proximity to the argument that it is emphasizing or illustrating?

If I do end up using a graph, it will be pretty clear what it is expressing. The graph title and axes should make it obvious. Generally, graphs are placed just before the explanation in research papers, so that's what I will do if I choose to do so.

If your project contains large blocks of text, could they be broken up more effectively using text boxes, lines, headings, or images?

My essay will contain large blocks of text but that's part of the genre. There isn't supposed to be anything visually appealing about it, so I will not use boxes, lines, or subheadings. The only possibility of an image is a graph but I am not planing to use one in this project.

Do the different visual and textual elements come together persuasively as a whole, or are there elements that seem disconnected or out of place?

The graphs and their explanations will be obviously connected to the argument. Unless a graph can produce a shocking statistic, I don't think it will be anymore persuasive to my audience than just stating the numbers.

Looking back at your outline or a draft of your project, is the visual-rhetorical tone of your project consistent?

The only type of image that would be appropriate for my genre is a graph because this is a very formal and academic paper. As long as I stick to that, the visual-rhetorical tone will be consistent.


Reflection
I read the posts by Kelly and Isabel. Some parts of their genre are similar to mine, like the evidence based argument, but my genre is very different from theirs when it comes to visual elements. My genre leaves no space for creative freedom while both of theirs do and they are utilizing it.

Project 3 Outline

Here's my outline for Project 3

CloudNinesDesigns "Vector Guitar Outline" 3/26/09 via deviantart.com. Public Domain. 

I. Introduction
     1. Hook
     2. Introduction approach: frame the consequences
     3. Thesis

II. Body Paragraph 1
     1. Topic: Proposed alternatives cannot yet determine genetic level causes of disease or determine how a disease becomes resistant to treatments.
     2. Evidence 1 and explanation
     3. Evidence 2 and explanation

III. Body Paragraph 2
     1. Topic: There are no reliable alternatives. Such methods usually compliment, not replace, animal testing.
     2. Evidence 1 and explanation
     3. Evidence 2 and explanation

IV. Body Paragraph 3
     1. Topic: By law, replacements to animal testing must be used whenever possible.
     2. Evidence 1 and explanation
     3. Evidence 2 and explanation

V. Body Paragraph 4
     1. Topic: Legislation around the globe requires pharmaceuticals to be tested in animals for toxic reactions.
     2. Evidence 1 and explanation
     3. Evidence 2 and explanation

VI. Conclusion
     1. Restate thesis
     2. Conclusion approach: common ground

I chose "frame the consequences" as my introduction approach because I will frame the consequences of a good alternative to animal testing, which is what my audience would like to see (or possibly believes already exists). This will allow me to relate to my audience immediately and hopefully they give the rest of the essay an opportunity to persuade them. The common ground approach in the conclusion was an obvious choice for me. Both sides of this argument want to see alternatives to animal testing produced.

Analyzing My Genre

Here are some examples of my genre and analysis of it.

Forsyth, Ellen "Fiction/genre sign - Burton Barr Central Library, Phoenix Public Library" 6/4/11 via Flickr.com. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Examples

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

Social Context

This genre can easily be found in a database. The subject of research essays vary. People that use this genre are scholarly. This genre is used to present and analyze evidence in a well constructed manner. It serves the purpose of presenting an argument in a formal and scholarly manner.

Rhetorical Patterns of the Genre

Research essays generally contain ample evidence and the only visuals the occasionally have are graphs. This genre uses appeals to logos most often and appeals to ethos second most. It does not have appeals to pathos. The texts are organized with an introduction, thesis at the end of the intro, body paragraphs ordered according to thesis, then the conclusion. Sentences in this genre do not follow a particular pattern. They vary from active to passive voice and from simple to complex sentences. They use whatever states the fact in the best way. There are no exclamation points and questions are used very very sparingly, if at all. Word choice in this genre simply picks the best word for the sentence. The tone is academic and formal.

Analysis of What those Patterns Reveal about the Social Context of the Genre

This genre includes people that know what all the words mean in the essay. That may sound like a joke but it's not. The vocabulary in these pieces reveal what the author assumes the reader knows and therefore the audience selected by the author. The writer is generally writing as a qualified writer in the subject based on the research and outside sources. The writer treats the reader as someone who knows less about the subject and explains the how the sources boost their argument. This genre assumes the reader values logic and credibility over emotion. Logic and credibility are the most valuable parts of this genre and emotion is the least important.

Reflection:
I read the posts by Jayni and Brandon. They are both doing a text based project like me and both are planning to appeal to logos and ethos like me. It seems like they both thought about their genre way more than I have but maybe that's just because I'm used to doing research papers and they're working in genres less familiar to a typical high school student.

Considering Types

In this post, I will decide which type of argument I will make.

o5com "Men Arguing" 8/25/10 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

I will make a refutation argument. This fits my project the best because there has been an argument that animal testing needs to stop (casual), there has been an argument that we can replace animal testing with alternative models (proposal), and now I will argue that they are ready to replace (refutation).

I don't think any other type would fit my controversy well. A position argument might but it seems like a refutation argument fits so well that I won't do a position argument.


Reflection:

I read Mehruba and Alyssa's posts. I could relate to something in each of their controversies. Mehruba and I picked an evaluative and refutation argument respectively. These arguments are counterparts and although they have opposite goals, we plan to construct our arguments similarly. Alyssa is going against a long held tradition. Similarly, I thought about making my audience animal lovers but I decided that no matter how persuasive I am, it won't change a thing. I decided it's too difficult but she's going for it, so good for her!

My Rhetorical Action Plan

Here's my rhetorical action plan.

No author. "Action Plan" n.d. via picserver.org. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. 

1. Audience

A. Knowledge
The audience knows little about basic chemistry. They know that drugs are a chemical reaction and sometimes the drugs react with molecules that were not intended to be reacted with and that that causes problems.

B. Values
The audience has to value logic more than emotion on this issue. If not, they will want animal testing stopped regardless.

C. Standards of Argument
I will use research that discusses the leading replacements for animal testing and how useful they actually are. This will be persuasive because my audience values logic. I will be sure to explain anything that was not completely clear to me because I am similar to my intended audience.

D. Purpose
My audience is reading my argument because they value logic in a controversy that is full of emotion. This isn't intended to motivate my audience since my audience doesn't have power to make a change in this controversy.

2. Genre: Essay

A. Function
Essays are generic in the world of writing. For a logical based audience, essays are effective because they are highly structured and contain evidence that is thoroughly explained.

B. Setting
This genre is common for the formal and intellectual world.

C. Appeals
Logic is king in this genre and audience. Appeals to credibility are effective too, but it needs to be used to develop reliability rather than just state that a source is expert level so they must be right. Appeals to emotion will not make an appearance in this essay.

D. Visual Elements
The only visual elements this audience wants to see is graphs. Even then, it's not necessary and based on this subject, it does not seem like it will be needed.

E. Style
This genre is formal. Any break from formality goes against my credibility.

3. Responses

A. Positive Support
People will respond positively if they value facts. I don't anticipate any action to be taken since I am defending the way things are.

B. Negative Rebuttals
People may react negatively if they are not within the intended audience. Those who value emotion over logic will not like my essay.

C. My Response to Negative Rebuttals
There's only so much logic some people won't listen to before it's time to decide they're a lost cause. If I encounter a logical counterargument, I will address that when it happens, but I have no sources that logically oppose my viewpoint.

D. Chains of Action
Again, this is a defensive case so the chain of action ends at prove the opposition is wrong.

Analyzing Purpose

In this post, I will analyze my purpose.

godserv "Got Purpose? - Sermon Title" 4/13/10 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic.

1. Goal

The goal of my argument is to persuade the reader why alternatives to animal testing currently are or are not plausible replacements using logic.

2. Reactions

It's not possible to persuade hardcore animal lovers that animal testing is necessary. It is possible that the moderate reader on this issue will be swayed and it is possible that those who choose a side based on logic will be swayed.

3. Consequences

I honestly don't anticipate this to produce any sort of consequence. The reader will know more about the issue and maybe tell people about it when it comes up but I don't expect anyone to think this is something that can totally change this controversy.

4. Audience

As stated in the "reactions" section, this will not be effective toward the extreme audience. It could have an effect on the moderate audience and the logical audience.

Analyzing Context

I will analyze context in this post.

Hoekwater, Taco "ConTeXt Unofficial Logo" 4/22/09 via Wikipedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.

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

I am studying the perspectives that animal testing could be replaced by new technology and the opposition of that viewpoint.

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

The major point of contention is that the technology that may be able to replace animal testing is not more reliable as animal testing nor does it model the human anatomy as well or completely as animals.

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

Both sides can agree that animal testing is not completely good. No one wants to kill animals but some think it's necessary to advance medicine.

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

The ideological differences between the sides is that some think this new technology is ready or very close to ready to replace animal testing and the opposition is not convinced it provides a whole comprehension of drug effects.

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

Those who push for the use of this technology call pharmaceutical companies to use it and producers of the technology to make it better and more accurate. The opposition simply states that this technology cannot be used because it is not ready to model the human body.

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

Perspectives that detail what technology is available to potentially replace animal testing will be the most useful. I chose this because it is logically based, which is what last project detailed was important in an engineering viewpoint.

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

The greatest threat to my argument is an argument that calls attention to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of animal testing in catching errors in drugs. This is a threat because it could potentially nullify my argument without addressing problems in it.


Reflection

I read the posts by Jayni and Brandon. I learned that both sides of my controversy have common ground and I can utilize that to reach both audiences. Jayni's controversy seems like it's easier to reach both sides than mine. I think if I tried to make an argument for animal testing, the negative reaction would be much more polarizing in my controversy.

Audience and Genre

In this blog entry, I will identify two specific audiences interested in my project, find two publication locations and genres per audience, and two examples per location and genre.

Murch, Beatrice "Audience" 8/25/09 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic. 

Audience 1

My first audience is animal rights activists.

     Location and Genre 1

My first location is called the Animal Liberation Front or ALF. They looked like some kind of anarchist animal rights group, which is really what intrigued me. I'm not any of those things but that combination sounds like it has a lot of fascinating individuals on it. The two examples I have are totally different. One is a list and the other is a research essay that cites PETA way too much to be credible. Either way, the two examples are relatively short and both are very passionate about animals, which is a role I'd have to pretend to be if I consider this as my audience. The essay even stated that "the soul is the same in all living creatures".

          Example 1

          Example 2

     Location and Genre 2

My second location is the National Anti-Vivisection Society. The two exapmles I looked at seem like a cross between the QRG and an typical article. They definitely made use of bullet point in each example.

           Example 3

           Example 4


Audience 2

My second audience scientists. I'm not sure what sites specifically scientists testing on animals go to but there are general science sites.

     Location and Genre 3

My first scientific location is American Scientist. The genre they present is a formal essay format. One essay uses shorter paragraphs almost like a news article but the other has longer paragraphs. Both are formal.

          Example 5

          Example 6

     Location and Genre 4

My second scientific location is Discover. The genre is formal articles with mid length paragraphs.

          Example 7

          Example 8

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In this post, I will make an annotated bibliography for Project 3.

papertrix "bibliography" 8/28/05 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic.

1. Alternatives in Animal Testing. Environmental Health Perspectives. March 1996, p. 250-252. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/stable/3432876

This source talks about alternatives to animal testing. Contains information on three R's. Has a method by which scientists do not need to repeat a test for different organizational approvals. This helps answer the second question.

2. Kessler, Rebecca. Filling a Gap in Developmental Toxicity Testing: Neural Crest Cells Offer Faster, Cheaper, Animal-Free Testing. Environmental Health Perspectives. August 2012, p. A230. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/stable/41553114

This source also talks about alternatives to animal testing. It contains the neural crest cell testing which shows promise in replacing animal testing altogether. This source helps answer the second question.

3. von Roten, Fabienne Crettaz. Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation: Trend and Explanatory Factors. Social Science Quarterly. June 2008, p. 537-549. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/stable/42956328

This source discusses cultural opinions on animal testing. It found that opinions in Switzerland shifted to be more negative toward animal testing from 1994 to 2005. This answers my third question.

4. Macnaghten, Phil. Animals in Their Nature: A Case Study on Public Attitudes to Animals, Genetic Modification and 'Nature'. Sociology. July 2004, p. 533-551. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/stable/42856638

This source also discusses cultural opinions on animal testing. It found that opinions on animal testing are negative because people reject genetically modified animals as going against nature. Article published in 2004. This answers my third question.

Narrowing My Focus

I will chose three of my favorite questions from the previous post and explain why I think they are the most important to answer.

Melki, Serge "The narrow streets of Barcelone" 3/6/09 via Wikipedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

How effective is animal testing in catching problems in drugs?
Is there a more accurate model to the human body than animals? If so, what is it?
How do cultural values impact this controversy?

I chose these questions because I have an idea of what the answer to all of them are, I can relate them, there are more sources about these questions than any of the others, and I know what argument I want to make using the answers to these questions. I have an idea of what the answers are but I need to read more about it to make a compelling argument.

Questions About Controversy

In this post, I will make questions for my Project 3 controversy. My controversy will be animal testing.

Neutrality "Question mark (black on white)" 6/13/05 via Wikipedia. Public domain.

Who is involved in the controversy?

Are there any public figures calling attention to this? If so, who are they?
Who is qualified to make analysis of this topic?
Who has studied the effectiveness of animal testing?

What is up for debate in this controversy?

How effective is animal testing in catching problems in drugs?
How many animals die in testing compared to how many human lives the drug saves?
Is there a more accurate model to the human body than animals? If so, what is it?

When has this controversy unfolded?

How long has animal testing been going on?
How has the number of animals tested on over time changed?
How has the effectiveness of animal testing changed over time?

Where has this controversy unfolded?

Where are the major pharmaceutical companies testing their drugs?
Where are the major opponents of animal testing located?
What are the cultural values in those areas?

How has this controversy unfolded in the media?

Who is calling attention to animal testing through media?
What are they saying?
How effective is the media in swaying opinions?

Reflection on Project 2

I will reflect on my rhetorical analysis in this post.

Kjunstorm "Flower reflection" 4/7/10 via Wikipedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic

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

I changed the introduction by adding a paragraph at the beginning to better address the prompt. All conclusion sentences were changed to address my audience rather than state why the author of my article (Arthur Allen) is effective. I added more to the concluding paragraph so that it's not just one sentence.

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

I did not change the overall organization or the thesis but I changed the context of the thesis so it answers the prompt better.

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

I changed that because my rough draft analyzed why Allen was effective within the controversy of animal testing. The prompt required us to answer why our piece was or was not effective within our major. Thankfully, all the rhetorical strategies I chose fitted the new purpose well.

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

Now I'm answering the prompt, which is always a good thing. The new conclusions also tie back to the overall purpose so that at the end of every paragraph so the essay never loses sight of its intended audience.

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

Like in the last question, my new conclusions narrow the focus back to the intended audience rather than stating why Allen is effective in general.

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

I added quite a bit of analysis to my essay. The new content has different word choice than the original draft and the new and old content is well mixed. It adds more variation and I don't repeat myself.

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

My new conclusions are addressed to my audience so it's always clear at the end of the paragraph why the strategy analyzed is effective within my major. The topic sentence of each paragraph is a general statement as to why the strategy is effective. As the paragraph goes on, it should be more clear to the audience why the strategy is effective.

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

I didn't need to reconsider conventions but I did have to reevaluate my audience. My rough draft's audience was the same audience as my article's audience when my analysis should have had a more specific audience.

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

Most of my writing process is sound. I need to understand the prompt better before trying to make a draft, though. The rough draft was salvageable for this assignment but it may not be for another prompt. Beyond that, this assignment went well, especially in the revision stage.


Reflection

Mehruba, Carter, and I all revised the conclusion and the intro. It was an assignment but my original is not nearly as good as the revised version. I revised a lot of the same things that they did.

Final Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Here is the final draft of my rhetorical analysis.
I don't know if I like the title. I couldn't come up with anything good so I just wrote something.

Punctuation, Part 2

In this post, I will look at three more topics of punctuation.

Jelte "Semicolon" 6/12/05 via Wikipedia. Public domain,

• The semicolon: I knew most of the content on semicolons; I didn't know that semicolons are used to separate items in a series containing internal punctuation. That definitely makes more complicated lists flow better and makes those sentences more clear.
• The colon: Everything I know about colons is from this video. Surprisingly, I know when to use a colon from that song. The book clarified when to avoid a colon but I don't write thinking about when I can use a colon, so I think I can avoid those situations on my own.
• Quotation marks: There are quite a few rules on quotation marks. At some point or another, I've learned about them all but I don't frequently think about how to properly use quotation marks while writing. Either it's second nature at this point or I need to take a second look at all my quotation marks in my draft.

In my essay, I used these three things correctly most of the time. I had to revise the beginning of a quote but that's it. I didn't use a semicolon nor a colon in my rough draft whatsoever but I am using them in the final draft and now I have a better idea of how to appropriately use them.

Copy for Paragraph Analysis 2

Here is the link to my copy for paragraph analysis for project 2. In this post, I will share with you my disappointment in my writing.

geralt "analysis" ca. 2014 via pixabay. Public domain.

Let's start with good news. The strength (yes only one) of my rough draft is that I had evidence from the text in it.

The bad news is it did nothing else well. The introduction was kind of pretty, like I'd give it a 7 out of 10, if it answered the right prompt. It introduced animal testing instead of rhetoric in my major. The body paragraphs were composed 70% of quotes and evidently 0% effort. I don't know what the other 30% is but we'll just leave it as "it's not good". The conclusion was made of 100% genuine "I'm done with this draft" and it shows.

Revised Conclusion

I will rewrite my conclusion in this blog post.

Mrs rockefeller "Collier conclusion" 3/12/08 via Wikipedia. Public Domain.

My revised is much better than the original. The original was pretty much just my thesis so that's not too hard to make a better conclusion than that. That point aside, I was unsure of how this conclusion would turn out as I was writing it but I think it turned out well. I am confident in the direction I am taking with it (the "so what" approach) and I will develop it further and better once my whole essay is revised to make it the best I can.

Original

In his article "Of Mice or Men", Arthur Allen acknowledges that animal testing may have yielded effective drugs but uses historical evidence and experts' studies to claim that animal testing does not have enough merit to continue.

Revised

Arthur Allen's use of refutation, historical records, and experts' studies makes his argument credible. His argument proves that animal testing does not work frequently enough to warrant its continuation. Drug tests in animals do not catch major problems of that drug in humans but its historical use keeps it relevant. As technology advances, there needs to be an emphasis on the creation of a more accurate model of how the human body will react to a drug, not only for the lives of animals, but for humans too.

Revised Introduction

I will rewrite my introduction in this blog post.

Kalel007 "Orange Icon Edit" 3/2/09 via Wikipedia. Public Domain.

My revised version is better than the first because it addresses the prompt better. I think I could still use the original if I get rid of the thesis at the end of my revised and replace it with a transition. My original has good information on the context of the article that I want to keep but it doesn't answer the prompt very well. My revised is far from perfect and it needs work but it's certainly a better start than my original.

Original

Animal testing has long been used to determine the usefulness of a developing drug and test for unwanted side effects. In order to test for the widest range of possible side effects, many animals are tested on and frequently killed in the process. This calls attention to the humanity, or lack thereof, of animal testing. Many have voiced their opinion and published pieces both for and against animal testing. Although animal testing has yielded effective drugs, the article “Of Mice or Men” by Arthur Allen uses historical evidence and experts’ studies to prove that testing does not produce useful and effective results frequently enough to justify the life cost.

Revised

In a world full of opposing viewpoints, people need to find a way to be more effective than others to get their point across. The main forms of arguments are appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, and appeal to credibility. Some forms of arguments appeal more to different backgrounds and professions than others. Engineering is no exception. This is the field of study that is widely accepted as geeky and unfeeling, totally logical. To create an effective argument for an engineer, one must construct an argument very carefully, using only facts. The article "Of Mice or Men" by Arthur Allen is a prime example of this. He uses acknowledgement and refutation of counterarguments, historical evidence, and experts' studies to form an argument that appeals to engineers.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

I will reflect on my rough draft of project 2 in this post.

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

I have an identifiable thesis that clearly states two of the rhetorical strategies I analyzed but the counterargument/refutation is vaguely stated.

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

I organized my essay the standard way of explaining each rhetorical strategy in their own body paragraph. I had evidence in each paragraph but my analysis is lacking. I need to develop the points more and transition better between points.

Did you clearly identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation and/or structure?
I clearly identified the elements of the rhetorical situation but the analysis needs development.

"Reflection pool" 4/4/5 via Wikipedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

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

I did not explain why the rhetorical strategies were employed or what effects the strategies have on the intended audience. I did not have a complete understanding of the prompt so I will need to go back and add that information.

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

I have evidence, I just don't think it's thoughtfully used. I sort of just threw in evidence from the text without giving a full thought as to why it's important. I gave specific examples from the text and explained why they are relevant but I did not analyze why they are effective.

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

I think my draft is okay but it does leave out some critical analysis. I have no conclusion so nothing is answered by my conclusion.

Punctuation, Part 1

In this post, I will review rules regarding punctuation.

Lim, Walter "This is so funny, yet morbidly true. Indeed, punctuation saves lives! Great post by @styluscommunications #writing" 2/11/15 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

1. The comma: Most of this section pretty much just told me, "Use your brain." I already know most of the content covered, but I have never been taught about restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. It seems like an easy mistake to make to not add a comma before and after nonrestrictive elements, but the content about restrictive elements is intuitive to me.
2. Unnecessary commas: I consider myself a "comma-happy" writer so I read these two sections for help with decreasing the comma count in my writing. I already knew most of the content in these sections. What I didn't know amounts to I need to pay closer attention to the sentence structure to better understand where a comma should and shouldn't be.
3. The apostrophe: I use the apostrophe correctly for most of the cases covered. I do not correctly punctuate plural of numbers or plural of abbreviations. I will look out for those in the future. This section was a bit strange because the "rules" they presented for "plural of letters" and "plural of words mentioned as words" were actually just recommendations because they added content that justifies punctuating those the other way as well. 

Reflection

I peer edited Dylan and Jessica's essays. I learned that he punctuation concepts I chose are not difficult but they are easy mistakes to make. Both Dylan and Jessica used commas and apostrophes correctly most of the time. In Dylan's sentence "they know his work, they know his style and they study his films to learn from him", he did not put a comma after the word "style". In cases like this, I make this mistake all the time. Jessica misused an apostrophe in her sentence "Cilento explores the passion that most architect’s feel for their profession and reminds readers that that passion drives the profession." Again, this is not a mistake that shows lack of understanding.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Here's the rough draft of my rhetorical analysis. Here's a link to my article too.

Edward VI "Devise for the Succession" ca. 1553. Public Domain.

I took "rough" to a whole new level with this draft. It's lacking deep analysis but the basic ideas of what I want to write are there, I just need to expand it for the final draft. My conclusions need work, especially the concluding "paragraph". It's actually just one sentence right now because I was just done with that draft. SO please give advice especially for making effective conclusions and title suggestions if you feel like it. I cannot make cool titles to save my life.