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.

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

This is my practice of paraphrase and summary.

USDA "Lab Animal Care" 4/4/12 via Wikipedia. Public domain.

Original Source

"Still, it is true that animal tests, even on multiple species, do not always predict the toxicity of pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals in humans. This doesn't make animal testing any less crucial to the development and testing of drugs. But in an era in which drug development is growing increasingly sophisticated, it may point to the need for new designs in animal testing."

My Paraphrase of Original Source

In his article, Allen asserts that even when tested on multiple species, animal testing does not always properly represent the toxicity of drugs in humans. Although this fact doesn't make animal testing any less vital to the development and testing of drugs, this is a time in which pharmaceutical creation is rapidly progressing, and a better way to test drugs may be needed.

My Summary of Original Source

Testing critical to drug development and there should be a better model of the human reaction to a drug than animal testing.

Project 2 Outline

In this post, I will start with a paragraph explaining what I learned from the reading then I will write my outline.

The reading didn't state too much information that I didn't already know. There was information about the conclusions that I knew but I've never actually applied it. It seems like all my teachers have been totally fine with minimal effort conclusions. This is a genre I am much more familiar and comfortable with than last project, so I can commit more attention to conclusions in the rough draft.

Pasternak, Leonid "The Passion of creation" 19th Century. Public domain.

Introduction

• Background information: briefly explain the rhetorical situation and the cultural ideology
• Thesis statement: 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 enough relevant results to justify the life cost of lab animals.

Body Paragraph 1

• Topic: acknowledgement of counterargument
• Evidence 1: "...it is true that animal tests, even on multiple species, do not always predict the toxicity of pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals in humans. This doesn't make animal testing any less crucial to the development and testing of drugs."
• Evidence 2: "Dogs, it turns out—usually beagles, in particular—are man's best test animal, in that the same compounds frequently sicken dogs and their masters"

Body Paragraph 2

• Topic: historical evidence
• Evidence 1: "In March, London clinicians injected six volunteers with tiny doses of TGN1412, an experimental therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis that had previously been given, with no obvious ill effects, to mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys. Within minutes, the human test subjects were writhing on the floor in agony."
• Evidence 2: "In 2003, for example, Elan Pharmaceuticals had to stop trials of an Alzheimer's vaccine that had cured the disease in "Alzheimer's mice," after the substance caused brain inflammation in human test subjects."

Body Paragraph 3

• Topic: expert studies
• Evidence 1: "Working with confidential data provided by 12 pharmaceutical companies on 150 compounds that had produced a variety of toxic effects in people, an institute-hosted workshop found that only 43 percent of the drugs produced similar problems in rodents, and 63 percent did so in nonrodents."
• Evidence 2: "One of the scientists, Ralph Heywood, stated in 1989 that 'there is no reliable way of predicting what type of toxicity will develop in different species to the same compound.'"

Conclusion

• Thesis restated
• Sum up why rhetoric is effective

Reflection

I read the posts by Nick and Alyssa again. I didn't have the foresight last RRR to check and see whose outlines weren't commented on, and after going through all blog sites in the class, Nick and Alyssa's blogs were the only two that had the outline posted and had no comments. Anyway, Nick's outline was very detailed while mine and Alyssa's were kept brief. Like Alyssa, I don't find outlines incredibly helpful but I used this assignment to find specific evidence within the text to support my claim that the rhetoric is effective. That will help me when I do my rough draft since my rhetorical analysis essays are always in the PIE format.

Draft Thesis Statements

In this post, I will make a few working thesis statements and analyze which I like best.

Thesis 1

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.

Thesis 2

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 enough relevant results to justify the life cost of lab animals.

Stricker, Rudolf "Lancia Thesis Kappa" 12/11/07 via Wikipedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

There's a car actually called a Thesis. It looks like an Italian version of a Cadillac.

My first thesis was my "rough draft" thesis and it shows signs of that. It is structured just like a freshman level high school English textbook would have me write. It has it's advantages but it isn't my best work by a long shot.

I like my second thesis better. It was crafted based on the first as seen by some of the word choice but it comes off as a more aggressive thesis and presents my opinion better by discrediting the counterargument immediately. The first thesis is passive in that it puts the opinion on Allen and not me, nor does it state that the counterargument is wrong. My second thesis also seems easier to smoothly integrate into an introduction.


Reflection

I read the posts by Alyssa and Nick. They both wrote effective thesis statements that will make a great essay. Alyssa's theses were significantly longer than both Nick's and my own. She says in her post that that is because she is concerned about meeting the length requirement of this project and earlier in her post she also mentioned that she had a class specifically for writing rhetorical analyses. I'd like to think that I have experience with writing these, but my experience is nothing compared to that and I think I need to revisit my thesis once my whole draft is written. I think making a rock solid and specific thesis would come easier after the whole essay is written since the thesis is essentially the topic sentence of the whole essay.

Analyzing My Audience

In this post, I will analyze my audience.

University of Houston "Audience" ca. 1950. Public domain.

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

I am writing for new and incoming students in my major. Their beliefs and assumptions are likely similar to what was set up as the standard at the beginning of my article: most people don't like animal testing but accept it for medical advancement. This article addresses the fact that most people assume animal testing advances medicine.

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

The position people take is based on the success of animal testing in making effective drugs. If animal testing yields effective drugs then people will support it. Similarly, if animal testing does not yield effective drugs then people will not support it. I need to respond to this position by presenting the facts.

What will they want to know?

Readers will want to know if animal testing yields effective drugs for humans. Some may also want to know how many animals die in testing per year because that life cost may not be worth the resultant drug in their opinion.

How might they react to my argument?

I will side with my source. It's not perfect because they misrepresent the counterargument but it is the popular side and the rhetoric used is effective, easy to analyze, and easy to applaud. Since I am taking the popular side, my reader is likely to take my side.

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

I plan to present the facts given in the article and analyze why it is or why it is not effective in promoting the argument. It's a very logical argument and may not be relatable to a more emotionally based major. However, I am an engineering major so logic should relate to the reader.

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

My mode of presentation of giving the facts will relate to the majority of engineering majors.


Reflection

I read the posts written by Dylan and Jessica on audience. They both did a great job of analyzing their audience and I think I did pretty well too. I found it interesting that both of their essays are analyzing a piece that they claim people outside of their major wouldn't care about. That limits their audience without the assignment needing to do so. My topic is on a larger scale but I think that reflects that they know a lot about their majors than I know about mine.

Cluster of "Of Mice or Men"

This is my cluster for Project 2.

Wuest, Kyle Screenshot taken 10/10/15.

I think the way I did my cluster is pretty straight-forward: I answered the bullets on the assignment and the result gave me an effective cluster. The appeals to pathos are minimal in my article, don't play an important role, and I won't write about them so I decided to exclude them from the cluster entirely.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Of Mice or Men"

In this post, I will analyze the rhetorical strategies in my piece.

Snyder, Jason "WT and TK rat photo" 11/9/11 via Wikipedia. Public domain.

Appeals to Credibility or Character

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Credibility and Character (Ethos)" on page 182 can you recognize in your text? There was acknowledgement of counterarguments and refutations to those arguments as well as appeals to beliefs shared by the audience.
• How and why would the author(s) use these strategies? The author used these strategies to appeal to a wider group of people and to help develop his case.
• How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author's/authors' credibility and character? Acknowledging the counterargument and refuting it makes the author look more open minded by acknowledging the counterargument and by refuting it, the author proves that he considered those points but then decided against it for the reason given.
• How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message? Credibility is a critical part in debate. Most of the things that make this person credible has to do with logic but being able to follow logic adds to credibility.
• Does/do the author(s) seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility? The author does have a bias but all biases expressed are backed with support to prove why that bias makes sense.

Appeals to Emotion

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)" on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text? The author uses mainly repetition of keywords and level of formality to achieve appeals to emotion.
• What emotional responses is the author attempting to create? The author maintains a very formal tone and builds his case logically and does little to build an emotional response.
• What is the actual result? The author is not driven by emotion so for logical thinkers like me, this adds to his credibility.
• Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation? Those who oppose animal testing are usually fuelled by emotion rather than logic. This article seems like it's aimed toward the group opposed to his opinion, who are generally logical thinkers. The lack of emotion is therefore effective for his audience.
• How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author(s) or the logic of the text? The lack of emotion and logic based argument adds to the author's credibility.

Appeals to Logic

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Logic or Rational Decision Making (Logos)" on page 183 can you recognize in your text? This author uses historical records, statistics, expert opinions, effective organization, and clear transitions.
• What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies? The author is trying to build credibility by using logic.
• What is the actual result? It works.
• Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation? These strategies are effective for the audience because the audience is largely composed of logical thinkers.

Analyzing Message in "Of Mice or Men"

In this post, I will analyze the overall message in the article "Of Mice or Men".

Stevens, Janet "Wistar rat" 1/1/01 via Wikipedia. Public domain.

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

The two most important points on page 181 are respond to a particular occasion and to persuade the audience of something. The author responds to a case where drugs in the testing phase were given to humans rather than animals at the beginning of the article and builds off that. The main purpose of this is to persuade the audience that animal testing is bad.

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

The two least relevant points are to inform the reader about a topic that is often misunderstood and to reflect on a topic. The author writes as though the reader does not know anything or very little on the topic so they do not focus on the counterargument which is what a text that aims to inform the reader about a topic that is often misunderstood does. The fact that the author assumes minimal knowledge of the subject, they do not reflect on the topic.

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

The author focuses on what scientists find in experiments that try to determine the usefulness of animal testing. This author aimed to present the facts and make a logical conclusion based on those.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

In this post, I will analyze my assumptions about this text.

DeVolson, Grant "American Gothic" 1930 via Wikipedia. Public domain.

1. What cultural values do I share with this text? I agree with the value that animal testing is morally wrong.
2. What cultural values do I not share with this text? I don't think that animal testing is morally wrong enough to do away with completely. I think it's wrong but it yields effective drugs for humans.
3. If the text was written in a different culture, what values connect to mine? Since little is known about the author, I do not know if this was written within the same culture. However, when it comes to an issue like this, most developed countries have this issue and people within those cultures share views similar to this.
4. If this text was written in the same culture but a different historical time, how have the values developed or changed? The culture in which this is written is inferred to be very similar to my own. This was written in 2006 which is a while ago but not a different historical time. Ideology is still very similar now to how it was then.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

In this post, I will analyze the context in which my text was written.

Huet, Roland "Charles Nicolle at microscope" 1/27/08 via Wikipedia. Public domain.

This article was published June 1, 2006 on Slate.com. The author is Arthur Allen. I found little about him, only what was on his Slate biography. He is the author of three books and is a health writer and editor at Politico.

The main values that plays a role in this is article is that people don't want animals to suffer and die during animal testing. The text directly addresses this value and supports it with evidence.

Cultural Analysis of "Of Mice or Men"

In my previous post, I evaluated different cultural situations. I was not aware that I would have to chose one of those to do the entire project on, so I selected a different article called "Of Mice or Men". Keywords include "animal testing" and "pharmaceuticals". This article says that animal testing doesn't have relevant results to people. In this post, I will analyze the cultural message behind my article.

"A rabbit after a Draize test" 11/28/07 via Wikipedia. Public domain.

As stated above, the keywords in this piece are "animal testing" and "pharmaceuticals/drugs". These are keywords for obvious reasons: animal testing contributes to the creation of drugs. These keywords or some variation of them appear in every paragraph.