Considering Types

In the post below, I will be considering types of public arguments and analyzing which ones will be most effective for my project.

Vulkano12. "Rhodesian Ridgeback." October 31, 2010 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

Position Argument

This type of argument could be potentially effective in my project. By including both sides of the debate, I will be able to prove there is more evidence supporting genetically modified organisms, rather than opposing them. The pros and cons will allow me to fully explain the controversy while still allowing me to support my views.

Evaluative Argument

This type of argument would be effective because it evaluates the successfulness of a certain idea, in this case, genetically modified organisms. By analyzing the successfulness of GMOs, I will be able to prove my point that they are not necessarily bad.

Refutation Argument

This will be the most effective type of argument for my project. I will have enough evidence to refute every claim made by those in opposition to GMOs. This will allow me to effectively support my argument because I will be able to refute with evidence. I will be able to prove the potential benefits of GMOs.

Reflection: 

Morgan's consideration is a little different than mine. She considered every type of argument for her project and I only considered a few. Also, I feel as though an evaluative argument would be the most effective for her project because she would be evaluating the effectiveness of spanking for punishment. However, I feel as though refutation would be the most effective for my project because I will be refuting claims made in opposition to genetically modified organisms. Isabel's consideration of different types of arguments was very similar to mine. We both feel as though science and logic will be the most effective means of arguing our points. In addition, I feel as though evaluative or refutation arguments would be the best for either of our projects.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In the post below, I will be answering questions to create a rhetorical action plan.

Kenny Louie. "Coffee Break." April 18, 2009 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Audience 

1. What does your audience know about the topic?

My audience has a general idea about the topic. The audience I'm targeting are people who are on the fence about being opposed or in favor of GMOs. Because of this, my audience should have some limited knowledge about the topic.

2. What values might your audience hold?

My audience believes in the rights of the individual in regards to labeling laws and knowing what their products are made of. In addition, my audience believes in personal health because they are concerned with whether or not GMOs are detrimental or beneficial. However, because they are on the fence, my audience is not strongly in favor one way or another.

3. What type of research or evidence do you think will be most effective for your audience? 

Scientific research, or the lack there of, will be the most effective because my audience is on the fence. By providing concrete evidence, I will be able to convince them that GMOs are not necessarily bad, especially because there is such limited evidence to actually prove GMOs "bad."

4. What visual evidence might your audience respond to and why?

My audience will respond best to charts and graphs because it will visually consecrate the idea that there is not enough evidence to prove GMOs are bad for you. In addition, graphs will visually show how GMOs have actually helped create sustainable farming.

5. What is the purpose of your public debate?

The purpose of my debate is to inform and persuade readers that GMOs are not necessarily bad. I want to help readers understand exactly what genetically modified organisms are and how they can help us. Though my public debate, I intended to cause readers to agree with my viewpoint and not be opposed to genetic modification.

Genre


1. What genre will you be writing in and what is the function of it?

I will be writing an argumentative article or an informative essay explaining why GMOs are not bad for us. The function is to persuade my audience of my viewpoint. Through my argument, I will be able to achieve the goal of my public debate. For both of these genres, the rhetoric context will be similar.

Informative Essay 

Example One
Example Two

Argumentative Essay

Example One 
Example Two 

2. What is the setting of your genre?

My article will be similar to those found of the Huffington Post or other publications. I could see it being used as an article in a tabloid magazine.

3. How will you use rhetorical strategies in this genre?

I will be using logos to support most of my evidence. In addition, I will be using ethos because I will be citing scientific and other credible evidence. I feel as though a logical argument proves the most effective when working with controversies in science because it is so gray.

4. What type of visual aids will you be using in this genre?

If I decide to use any visual aids, it will be graphs and charts with scientific evidence supporting my claim that GMOs are not bad.

5. What type of style will you be using in this genre?

I will be using an informal but informative style. I want to keep my argument informal so I don't scare away the audience; however, I still want to inform the audience of my view and support my argument with evidence.

Response/Actions

1. Positive Support

• My audience will agree with my argument
• They will stop boycotting GMO products which will benefit businesses and agriculture companies
• They will try to learn more about GMOs and become more interested in the positive effects of them

2. Negative Support

• My audience will disagree with my argument
• They will be opposed to GMOs 
• My argument will be ineffective

3. What is the most important negative consequence to address?

The most important negative consequence to address is my audience disagreeing with my argument. I need to ensure my argument is well supported and effectively presented.

4. What are potential chains of action?

If my argument is effective, my audience should stop being opposed to GMOs and try to learn more about them. Potentially, my audience could create and advocate for GMOs and sustainable agriculture for our future.

Reflection:

Alyssa's rhetoric plan was mapped out very well. We are both using logos and scientific evidence to support our claims. I feel as though this is the most effective means of supporting in argument in science and technology because not many people know much and scientific evidence will teach our audiences and support our claims. I also like how Alyssa had two different genres and provided examples to each. Isabel and I have similar action plans. We are both considering writing an informative essay which would be published in a magazine or something. However, her audience and topic are different than mine. We also feel as though visuals such as charts and graphs would be the most effective for our projects because it allows the reader to physically see data. 

Analyzing Purpose

In the post below, I will be answering questions in order to analyze the purpose of my public argument.

tsbdave. "Skydivers." October 2013 via Pixaby. Public Domain Dedication. 

1. What is the goal of your public argument? What do you want your readers to believe at the end of it?

I want to explain in my public argument that GMOs are not necessarily bad for you. My public argument should inform readers about GMOs and educate the audience. I want the reader to consider and believe that GMOs are not bad; also, that there is not enough evidence to prove them detrimental. I also want to explain what GMOs are and their benefits and potential effects of GMOs.

2. Plausible Reactions

• The reader will consider that GMOs are not necessarily bad
• The reader will want to research more and educate themselves further on the controversy
• The reader will no longer be opposed to the production and selling of genetically modified products
• The reader will be less wary of GMOs
• The reader will ignore my argument and still believe GMOs are bad

3. Not Plausible Reactions

• The reader will fully accept or reject my argument
• The reader will start their own organization to support/oppose GMOS

4. Chain of Likely Consequences

By informing the reader about GMOs, he will be able to understand the controversy. After this, I will support my argument that genetic modification is not necessarily "bad" and can actually be beneficial. This should cause the reader to consider the potential benefits and should stop the reader from completely being opposed to GMOs. This should ease the disparity between groups and allow the people in opposition to be less wary of GMOs. Because of this, markets will benefit since people will be less opposed to purchasing genetically modified products.

5. Possible Audience to Achieve Goal

People in opposition and people on the fence of opposition could be potential audience members for my controversy. However, in order to a chief my goal, directing my argument to people on the fence of opposition will be easier to sway and achieve my goal of the project. Those completely opposed will be harder to convince that GMOs are not necessarily bad, but those on the fence will be easier to convince and advance my cause and achieve my goal.

Analyzing Context

In the post below, I will be answering questions in order to analyze the context of my public speech act.

Adam Knight. "Rainforest Pyramid." July 31, 2006 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. What are the key perspectives on the debate you are studying?

Essentially, there are only two views in the GMO debate. There are those who oppose the production and selling of genetically modified organisms and there are those that are in favor of GMOs. Those opposed generally believe GMOs are bad for not only personal health but also our environment. Those in favor generally believe GMOs are beneficial and help create sustainable farming.

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

Personal health is the biggest point of contention. Some people are wary of the effects of genetically modified organisms; however, we do not have enough research to prove whether or not they are detrimental. Another point of contention would be labeling laws; some feels as though they have no idea whether or not they are consuming genetically modified organisms and many major companies have not implemented labeling requirements. Regulation and selling of GMOs can also be considered a major point of contention.

3. What are the possible points of agreement among the differing viewpoints?

They possible point of agreement could be qualities to classify products as genetically modified. In addition, these two sides could agree on prices of products containing genetically modified organisms. Also, they could agree that genetic breeding has been going on for centuries, regardless if it is done synthetically.

4. What are the ideologies between differing perspectives?

Those opposed believe in personal health and the right to knowledge about the contents of their products. Those in favor do not feel as strongly about personal health and knowledge. Those in favor of GMOs could also be big businesses, which have a business mindset and disregard the individuals of our society; whereas, those opposed to GMOs care about the individual rather than a more broad, business-like perspective.

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

Generally, neither side asks their audience to do anything. Groups in opposition to GMOs have created organizations and might encourage people to join and make lifestyle changes, however, they do not specifically demand anything of their audience.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your argument? Why?

I will be using the viewpoints of the group in favor of GMOs because their evidence is more logical. In addition, there is not enough evidence to defend the ban of GMOs, so it would be hard to create an argument without any support.

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

The biggest threat to my argument will be the lack of evidence for either side. Nobody really knows the specific outcome of GMOs or whether or not their are detrimental/beneficial. Because of this, it might be a little challenging to fully defend genetically modified organisms.

Reflection:

Morgan had a different context than mine. Her differing viewpoints had a more clear common ground and it was a little harder for her to separate the groups. However, in my project, the groups are more distinguished but the common ground is harder to find. Also, her view on spanking is different than mine so I am excited to see what she writes about and how she defends her argument. Alyssa has a similar context in her project. However, her controversy focuses on religion and my project focuses more on the rights of individuals. Also, we will both be using scientific evidence to support our arguments, which I feel will be most effective for our projects.

Audience and Genre

In the post below, I will be deciding what audiences I want to target with my public speech and where I would like to publish my work and research.

ClkrFreeVectorImages. "Fleur-De-Lis." October 2014 via Pixaby. Public Domain Dedication. 

Audience One

For audience one, I want to target those in opposition to GMOs. My public speech act will be discussing how GMOs are not necessarily bad and could even be beneficial to our society. I want to target people opposing GMOs because I will be providing counter arguments to refute their opposing views.

Genre One

I would write my public speech act as a tabloid article and publish it in an online magazine.

Examples

Here is an examples of a tabloid article posted in Whole Foods magazine.

Here is another example of a tabloid article posted on IflScience.

Genre Two 

Another genre I could use for audience one is an argumentative essay and publish it on some sort of forum.

Examples

Here is an example of an argumentative essay published on Chegg.

Here is another example of an argumentative essay posted on a personal blog.

Audience Two

For audience two, I would focus on people who do not really know anything about the GMO debate. If I target this audience, I could make my public speech act more general and include both sides of the controversy.

Genre One

I could create an informative powerpoint and publish it on a public forum or as a pdf on Google. This way, people can learn about the GMO controversy visually.

Examples

Here is an example of a powerpoint of GMOs published on ShareNet.

Here is another example of a powerpoint published on ShareNet.

Genre Two

For genre two, I could write an informative essay and explain the GMO controversy. I could publish it in a magazine or as an article on a forum.

Example

Here is an example of an informative essay published on Custom Writing.

Here is another example of informative essay published on WordPress.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In the post below, I will be creating an extended annotated bibliography of the GMO controversy.

Roger. "Beatles 4." December 16, 2009 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

[1] European Food Council Organization, "Genetically Modified Foods", EUFIC, "http://www.eufic.org/article/en/food-technology/gmos/artid/gmos-debate/", [accessed, 10/23/2015].

This article discusses the safety involved in genetically modified organisms. It explains how the debate has been on going and is far from over; however, with research and evidence, it is safe to assume that genetically modified products are not harmful for human consumption. In addition, GMOs are becoming more popular; therefore, companies have ensured the products are safe to consume. This article also explains the consensus many organizations have come to in regards to genetically modified products. The audience is America and people who are concerned with purchasing genetically modified products. This article will benefit me in the future because it gives examples of what organizations are doing about the debate and also the new insights of the debate.

[2] White, M., "The Debate Over GMOs is About to Change", Pacific Standard, "http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/debate-over-gmos-is-about-to-change", [accessed 10/23/2015].

This article discusses different type of genetic engineering in plants, instead of herb-resistant seeds. In addition, it explains how genetically modified organisms have not been deemed unsafe for consumption because scientists have not found any evidence to prove their harmfulness. Also, the author questions the public's acceptance of GMOs and whether or not they will be more accepted. The audience of this article is Americans because the author explains the GMO debate in the context of American markets. This article will benefit me in the future because it provides more examples of genetically modified products and explains why they have not been considered harmful.

[3] Freedman, D. "The Truth About Genetically Modified Food", Scientific America, "http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/?page=2", [accessed 10/23/2015].

This article discusses in detail the "truth" about the genetically modified organism's debate. The author explains what the government is doing, what exactly is involved in the debate and why it is such an issue, what is being done, what the benefits are of genetically modified organisms are and even the potential risks involved in genetic engineering. In addition, the author explains because this debate is such a hot and popular topic that scientists are ensuring their products are safe for consumption. The audience of this article is anyone who is concerned with genetically modified organisms and wants to educate themselves on the particular debate. This article will help me defend genetically modified organisms because it explains how they are not necessary unsafe for consumption and it has enough evidence and explanations that I can use in my public argument.

[4] Haspel, T. "The GMO Debate: 5 things to Stop Arguing", Washington Post, "https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-gmo-debate-5-things-to-stop-arguing/2014/10/27/e82bbc10-5a3e-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html" [accessed 10/23/2015]. 

This article refutes the myths involved with genetically modified organisms. The author provides counter arguments for the main points debated in this controversy and explains why they should not be debated. This article is targeted toward people who are against GMOs because it provides information to counter the arguments. Because of this, this article will be useful to me in supporting genetically modified organisms. I will have evidence and explanation why they are not necessarily a bad thing for consumers.

Narrowing My Focus

In the post below, I will be explaining three questions to narrow my focus in order to craft my own public argument.

Kikatani. "The Carrot." October 2014 via Pixaby. Public Domain Dedication. 

1. What qualifications are needed for an organism to be considered genetically modified?

I feel as though it is important to understand what exactly qualifies a product as genetically modified in order to understand why people oppose them. Also, it is important because it distinguishes products from one another.

2. Who are the major proponents of GMO sellers and GMO buyers?

I feel like it is important to understand exactly who is involved in the GMO controversy, like which companies sell these products and who exactly buys these products. This will explain who is involved in GMO interactions and where they mainly occur in the United States.

3. Where does GMO opposition occur the most?

By understanding the demographics of GMOs, I will be able to understand what kind of people oppose GMO, what social class they are and general demographics involved in GMO opposition. Also, I will be able to understand what areas GMOs impact the greatest.

Questions About Controversy

In the post below, I will be asking questions about the context of the controversy I analyzed in Project One.

Jason Mrachina. "Soaring Eagle." January 26, 2013 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication. 

Who

1. Are there other seeding companies that sell genetically modified seeds?
2. What type of people are actually opposed to GMOs?
3. What stores support and sell GMO products and what stores don't?

What

1. What products are genetically modified?
2. What qualifications are needed to be considered genetically modified?
3. What organizations regulate GMOs?

When 

1. When did GMOs come about?
2. When did this controversy actually begin?
3. When did people begin opposing genetically modified organisms?

Where

1. Where do seeding companies sell their products?
2. Where does the biggest resistance occur?
3. Where are GMO products mainly sold?

How

1. How are GMOs made?
2. How do seeding companies benefit from GMOs?
3. How do people in opposition show their resistance to GMOs?

Project Two Final Draft

In the post below, I will be providing a link to the final draft of my rhetorical analysis of "Genetically Engineered Babies."

Kaz. "Tiger Cub." October 2013 via Pixaby. Free Commercial Use.

A final copy of Project Two can be found here.

Reflection on Project Two

In the post below, I will be answering questions to reflect on project two.

Traveling Man. "Havasupi Falls, Grand Canyon." May 16, 2014 via Wikipedia.  Public Domain Dedication.

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

From the first draft to the second, I completely rewrote my introduction and conclusion. In addition, I revised grammar and my sentence structure. I feel as though rewriting both my introduction and conclusion strengthened my essay. 

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

I rewrote my thesis twice when I was revising. I tried to make it more specific to give the reader a better sense of direction for my analysis. I addition, I reorganized the content in each paragraph to make it more coherent and logical. 

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

After reconsidering the topic of the project, I decided to change aspects of my paper. I tried to ensure I stay on topic and analyze exactly how the author presented her argument and whether or not it was effective. In addition, I reconsidered my audience, which also led me to revise my essay a little. 

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

I think reconsidering the purpose of the project solidifies my credibility because I am accomplishing the goal. In addition, by gearing my analysis to a specific audience, I was able to include information they can understand, thus strengthening my credibility even more. 

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

My revision will make more sense to the audience. In addition, they accomplish the goal of project two which better addresses the overall purpose. Because of this, I was able to make an effective analysis. 

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

I tried to vary my sentence structure throughout the paper. Also, my style is very analytical which I think suits the project being it is a rhetorical analysis. Because of this, both my sentence structure and style appeal to the intended audience and allow an effective analysis. 

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

By making revisions with the audience in mind, I was able to construct an effective analysis. The intended audience is incoming engineering students; therefore, through my structure, tone and analysis, I was able to demonstrate how a person in our discipline presents an argument. Furthermore, the audience will be able to understand my purpose of explaining. 

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

No, I did not have to reconsider the conventions of a rhetorical analysis. In high school, we wrote many rhetoric essays so I already knew the conventions. I did, however, reconsider the purpose of the assignment a lot during the creative process.

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

Reflection helps me consider myself a pretty solid writer. In addition, reflecting on the project makes me realize the flaws in my creative process and how I should be more aware of the rhetorical context I'm writing in. Keeping the topic and purpose in mind helps construct an effective essay. 

Reflection:

Morgan has a very similar reflection to mine. In terms of conventions, we both already knew the conventions of a rhetorical analysis and did not have to reconsider them for this project. However, we both found it was helpful to keep the audience and overall purpose of project two when drafting. Just like Morgan, Isabel and I had similar reflections. We both feel as though it helps keeping the purpose in mind as well as the audience. In addition, I agree that a final reflection helps catch mistakes that would be otherwise overlooked. 

Punctuation Part Two

In the post below, I will be describing three more punctuation topics from Rules For Writers.

Eric Ralph. "Double Alaskan Rainbow." July 14 2007 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

1. Quotation Marks

In this section, the book explains when to use quotation marks. Also, the book explains when to use one quotation mark or when to use two. I learned where to place punctuations when using quotations as well. I found it interesting you have to place a period inside the quotation mark, not outside of it. Also, I did not know you have to use commas before and after a quotes. The book also explains what to do if the quote is at the beginning of a sentence: only use a comma after, unless the quote ends in an exclamation or question mark.

2. End Punctuation

This section of the book explains end punctuation in sentences. I found it interesting the book advises not to overuse the exclamation point because that's a convention that nobody really addresses, rather it is an unspoken rule. I also learned from this section when to use brackets and parenthesis, an ellipsis and the slash. This section is useful in understanding the conventions of constructing sentences and how they should be ended.

3. Unnecessary Commas

This section explains necessary commas. Commas are unnecessary if they are used to separate a verb and its subject; before the first or after the last item in a list; between adjectives and nouns; or after a phrase that begins an inverted sentence. I found the last piece of advice interesting because I've never considered the rule that a comma should not go after a phrase beginning an inverted sentence. This section is helpful to me because I love commas and I like knowing the actual rules of how to use them.

Paragraph Analysis Two

In the post below, I will be reviewing what I learned from the paragraph analysis for project two. In addition, I will be providing a link to a paragraph analysis for my rhetorical analysis.

Gabriel Rocha. "Little Buddha." November 19, 2009 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Reflection:

When conducting my paragraph analysis, I determined my paragraphs were generally pretty solid. Each paragraph focuses and thoroughly explains a different main idea. In addition, all of my ideas are coherent and relevant to my paper. My transitions are smooth and my paragraphs are internally organized to make logical sense. I noticed I start every paragraph with an inverted sentence, however. Also, I could revise to improve my organization within my paragraphs to make them more understandable.


A copy of my paragraph analysis can be found here.

Revised Conclusion

In the post below, I will be revising my conclusion and focusing on answering the question of "so what." My revision provides more examples and explanations. In addition, it thoroughly explains why the author created her article. The revision summarizes every paragraph as well as ties it back into how the author constructed her argument, which is the goal of project two. 

John Talbot. "Ella the Snow Dog." November 30, 2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Original: Parry utilizes logical rhetorical strategies to effectively present her argument. By including knowledge from experts, using logical organization and repeating specific words, Parry is able to construct an effective argument against embryonic engineering. We can identify the author's view; through her rhetoric strategies, we can clearly identify how she constructs her argument. Because of this, her article is effective and causes the reader to have an ethical awareness for issues involved in embryonic engineering.

Revision: Parry utilizes logical rhetorical strategies to effectively present her argument. By including knowledge from experts, she is able to support her argument against embryonic engineering with credible information. Because of this, Parry appeals to the logic of her readers. Parry utilizes rhetorical questions to force the audience to consider personal views as well as Parry’s views presented in her article. Finally, she implements logical organization that allow her readers to follow her argument. Parry repeats specific words like “uncertain”, “ban” and “mother nature” and is able to present her argument subconsciously in order to effectively cause the reader to consider ethical issues involved in embryonic engineering. Through these specific logical strategies, Parry constructs an effective argument to appeal to her audience and evoke a sense of ethical awareness within each reader.

Revised Introduction

In the post below, I will be rewriting my introduction paragraph for Project Two, the rhetorical analysis of "Genetically Engineered Babies." I feel as though the revised version of my introduction provides a more general idea of engineering. In addition, the transition from hook to thesis is a little smoother and ties the ideas of the paragraph together more effectively. Also, my thesis explains how the author uses rhetorical strategies specially, rather than just a general explanation of what she used.

Amandaelizabeth84. "LadyBug." October 2014 via Pixaby. Public Domain Dedicatin.

Original:
In recent years, genetic engineering has become a popular topic. We are now able to create products for a sustainable future, revolutionize the medical field and even eliminate certain diseases in unborn babies all through engineering. Webster defines genetic engineering as “the altering of an organism’s genetic composition by artificial means, involving the transfer of specific genes or traits.” Although this dictionary definition explains what exactly genetic engineering is, the definition fails to exploit the ethical issues involved in gene transfer, specifically in a human embryo.  In her article, “Genetically Designed Babies?”, Wynne Parry sheds light on the moral issues involved in embryo designing. Through her appeal to logic, Parry is able to present the unethical aspects involved in genetic engineering in order to evoke a sense of ethical awareness in her readers.

Revision:
Engineering has enabled us as a society to innovate and create sustainable products, revolutionize the medical field with alternative and personalized medicine, and even eliminate certain diseases from genomic sequences. However, many people consider these manufactured means to be "unnatural" and "unfair processes" to human existence because they provide unequal opportunities and advantages to situations that were previously left to chance. Specifically, the altering of genomic sequences has become a central aspect in embryonic development; through engineering, parents are now able to select which traits they want to appear in their child. In an article, "Genetically Engineered Babies," Wynne Parry deconstructs this technique while highlighting the moral issues involved in the alteration of an embryo's gene sequence. Through organization, as well as credible evidence, Parry is able to logically present her argument against genetic engineering in order to effectively evoke a sense of ethical awareness in her readers.

Reflection on Project Two

For Project Two, I peer reviewed Morgan's essay and Kelly's essay. In the post below, I will be answering questions from A Student's Guide to reflect upon my first draft.

Chief Trent. "Red American Kitten." March 1 2006 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

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

I have an identifiable thesis in my essay. It points to the authors use of logos to effectively present her argument; I could revise it to include specific logical techniques implemented by the author to make my thesis a little stronger and less general.

2. How have you decided to organize your essay? Does each paragraph have a central point that is supported with evidence and and analysis?

I organized my focusing on a different rhetorical strategy in each body paragraph. I began my essay with a general introduction and concluded my essay by explaining how effective each technique was in presenting the author's argument. Each paragraph in my essay does have a central point and explains the rhetorical strategies used by the author to present her viewpoints.


3. Did you clearly identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation and/or structure?

In my essay I was able to clearly explain and identify rhetorical strategies used in the article. I failed to explain the rhetorical situation surrounding the text because I decided to focus on the actual techniques to explain how the author presented her argument.


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

Yes, I explained and provided examples for how and why each strategy was in in the article. I did discuss the effects of each strategy and how it was effective or ineffective for the author's argument.

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


I used textual evidence in each body paragraph to provide examples for the various strategies used. I explained what each example provides to the article as well as the author's effectiveness. I could probably include a few more examples just to solidify my analysis; however, I still have a good amount of support.

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


I feel as though I answer the "so what" question in my conclusion because I analyze and discuss how each strategy is used. In addition, I explain how and why each technique is effective for the author's argument and how the author actually presents her argument.

Punctuation Part One

In the post below, I will be discussing three topics in the "Punctuation" section in the book Rules For Writers.

Pmuths1956. "Welchcorgipembroke." May 1 2008 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

1. The Comma

This section discusses when to use a comma. The book advises to use a comma in lists, in dates, to prevent confusion, to offset nouns, between adjectives and even phrases. I found it interesting that the book explains using a comma in a list, before the "and." I thought oxford commas were not a common thing so it was interesting to see a writing book tell us to use them. I also never really considered using a comma for quotes; it was interesting to see the rule actually explained.

2. The Semicolon

This section explains when to use and when not to use a semicolon. A semicolon should be used between closely related ideas only when they are not joined together with a coordinating conjunction. In addition, a should be used to link a independent clause and transitional phrase. I found it interesting you are not supposed to use a semicolon in any independent clause joined by "if, and, but, or, nor" or "yet." I did enjoy reading this section, though, because I love semicolons.

3. The Apostrophe

This section describes when to use an apostrophe. Apostrophes are mainly used to indicate possession; it should be used to show the noun has ownership of an object. In addition, an apostrophe should be used to show "omissions" of letters in contractions and number. The book explains that apostrophes should not be used to show the plural version of words. I found it helpful the book explains the difference between "it's" and "its" because I feel many people get that confused.


Reflection:

In Morgan's essay, I saw examples of semicolons. She has a few semicolon phrases throughout her paper. In addition, I revised the sentence below to include a semicolon.

Original: Though she has experience in parenting matters, Samakow is not a scientist or an expert in child psychology. Because of this, she uses credible experts whose findings support her claims.

Revision: Though she has experience in parenting matters, Samakow is not a scientist or an expert in child psychology; instead, she uses credible experts whose findings support her claims.

In Kelly's essay, I saw examples of apostrophes. She uses apostrophes correctly throughout her essay. In the sentence below, I saw how Kelly correctly used an apostrophe to show "athletes" possession of their muscles as well as in incorrect usage in "don't" because contractions should not be included in a rhetorical analysis.

Orignial: ....which led to the discovery that ice baths don’t allow athletes' muscles to grow as much as people who use active recovery.

Revision: .....which led to the discovery that ice baths do not allow athletes' muscles to grow as much as people who use active recovery.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

In the post below, I will be providing an explanation of my rhetorical analysis for peer review as well as a link to a draft of my rhetorical analysis.

Davefoc. "Flower." July 2011 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

I feel as though my analysis is really structured. If you have any advice how to fix it, I'd appreciate it! In addition, if there is anything I should add or change I am open to criticism. Also, could you make sure my draft is coherent and logically makes sense and if the title is okay? Thank you peer reviewers! A copy of my rhetorical analysis can be found here.

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In the post below, I will be practicing paraphrasing a quote from the article "Genetically Engineered Babies."

ONordsiek. "VW Bus." April 10, 2008 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

Quote

"Society should instead focus on the enormous importance of environmental influences in health, Winston said. "What we should be trying to do, rather than risk making abnormal babies, is to improve the environment so the DNA functions in the best possible ways.""

My Paraphrase of Original Source

Fertility expert Robert Winston believes "society" should be worried the impact of "environmental influences" on our health. He states we should be trying to change the environment to "improve" our health, rather than change an embryo's genomic sequence.


My Summary of the Original Source 

Instead of altering sequences, fertility expert Robert Winston believes we should try to improve our surroundings to prevent abnormal DNA functions.

Project Two Outline

In the post below, I will be reviewing the section in Writing Public Lives about outlines as well as creating an outline for my rhetorical analysis of "Genetically Engineered Babies."

AnonMoos. "Texas Flag Map." 2001 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

Review of Writing Public Lives pages 122-125

For the introduction, the advice "focus on the text itself, rather than the issue" (Minnex, 122) came in handy when constructing my outline. I will be focusing on the strategies within the text, not the actual issue addressed. In addition, I must provide enough general background information for the reader in order to explain what genetic engineering is. When constructing my thesis, I kept in mind that a thesis should be the "main point" (Minnex, 122) of the entire essay. When creating an analytical claim, I kept in mind I must keep it "supportable" (Minnex, 123) with examples directly from the text. When U was first drafting my outline, I was going to do a paragraph for logos, ethos and pathos; however, after reading this section, I took the book's advice on "focusing on one or two strategies" (Minnex 124) to keep my information organized. I like the advice about "explaining why the strategies are useful" (Minnex, 125) because I have never considered explaining why the argument is effective or not. Therefore, in this essay, I will make sure to include how these strategies effectively present Parry's argument.

Introduction

• Background Information 
• Explain what genetic engineering is and what areas it applies to 
• Thesis
• By appealing to logic, Parry is able to construct an effective argument within each subheading of her article against the unethical nature of embryo alteration for "designer babies.""

Body 1- Credible Sources 

• Focus 
• Explain how Parry uses expert opinions to back up her argument 
• Textual Support
• "Lord Robert Winston, a professor of science and society and a fertility expert at Imperial College in London, focused on the uncertainty associated with the genetic underpinnings of traits"
• Explain how gene alteration is not a guaranteed success and we do not know consequences yet
• "Scientists have found at least 50 genes that account for only 2 to 3 percent of the variance in the samples"
• Explain the dangers of altering because of the possibility of failure
• Sheldon Krimsky, a philosopher at Tufts University, who argued in favor of a ban on the same for human babies. "But in the hundreds of thousands of trails that failed, we simply discarded the results of the unwanted crop or animal."
• Explain how this dehumanizes embryo 
• Conclusion
• Explain the unknown consequences and dangers ==> nothing is certain
• Compare to other areas of engineering and how they dispose of unsuccessful attempts and how unethical it is to discard of an embryo 

Body 2- Rhetorical Questions

• Focus
• Explain the Use of rhetorical questions
• Textual Support
• "Would this change mean empowering parents to give their children the best start possible?"
• Describe how Parry answers this with the opinion of experts and how "mother nature doesn't care"=> unfair to the child
• "Or would it mean designer babies who could face unforeseen genetic problems?"
• Explain mitochondrial transfer mentioned later 
• Talk about elimination of natural selection
• "Leading to eugenics?"
• Discuss how Parry mentions the Nazi Germany=> allusion makes us consider the potential danger in genetic engineering 
• Also explain what eugenics is 
• Logical argument w the use of pathos b/c we don't want another Holocaust
• Conclusion
• Explain how Parry logically answers her rhetorical questions
• Causes reader to consider
• Explain how answers are supported w/ expert opinion

Body 3- Organization

• Focus
• Focus on how Parry logically constructs her argument
• Textual Support/Conclusion
• Subheadings
• Mention each topic is broken up in subheadings to clearly organize her ideas
• Each subheading is new point in argument
• Repetition of words
• Discuss how she repeats "nature" and "ban" and "uncertain" 
• Explain how this makes the reader logically consider the unethical aspect of genetic engineering
• Logical Arrangement
• Explain the intro, supports and conclusion
• Discuss importance of logical flow and how it convinces reader 
• Conclusion
• Discuss how organization allows reader to follow Parry's train of thought
• Discuss importance of subheadings and how they effectively/visually explain Parry's stance

Conclusion

• Revisit the three strategies Parry implements (credible sources, rhetorical questions, organization) and their importance
• Explain how strategies logically represent Parry's stance 

Reflection:

Dylan's outline was well written. He has four body paragraphs, which I feel will make his analysis even stronger. However, he is including examples from all three rhetorical strategies, which I do not think will be beneficial to his essay. Instead, I suggested to focus on one or two strategies. Kelly's outline was very thorough. She has a lot of textual support which will make her analysis even stronger. In addition, her draft should be easy to write because of her thorough outline. Kelly has two paragraphs focusing on logical strategies and only one focusing on pathos; I suggested she add one more paragraph focusing on pathos strategies to keep her essay even and consistent. 

Drafting Thesis Statements

In the post below, I will be drafting two thesis statements for the rhetorical analysis of "Genetically Engineered Babies?".

Toby Hudson. "PinkLadyApples." October 19, 2009 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

Pertinent Information:

Author- Wynne Parry. Journalist for scientific journals, focusing on biology, genetics and the body. Graduated from Columbia University.

Purpose- Intended to explain why embryo alteration is unethical. Parry presents her view to inform readers.

Audience- People who are interested in having kids, or even anyone interested in the field of engineering.

Ethos- Uses credible sources for support; unbiased, explanatory tone; educated word choice; and subheadings for effective visual organization

Logos- Uses evidence from experts in the field, logical organization, credible author

Pathos- word choice humanizes an embryo, repetition of words, analogies to highlight the lack of ethics involved

Thesis One

"By appealing to both logic and emotion, Parry is able to construct an effective argument, consisting of four different claims, against the unethical nature of embryo alteration for "designer babies.""

• This thesis will allow me to provide examples of how Parry uses logos and pathos within each paragraph because she provides four different points against the argument.
• It might be hard to organize my essay, so I would have to do four body paragraphs.
• It might also be confusing to have two different rhetorical strategies in one paragraph.

Thesis Two

"In order to consecrate the credibility of her article, Parry utilizes logical strategies as well as her credibility of a writer."

• This thesis will allow me to explain the logical appeal of the article
• I can explain the authors credibility and the logical strategies implemented to analyze the credibility of this article.
• It might be challenging to gather enough information from the text, especially about Parry's credibility. In addition, I feel as though this would not be a very interesting approach. 

Reflection:

Morgan's post taught me that you can do a lot with your thesis statement. She has two thesis that could change the direction of her essay completely. In addition, Morgan demonstrates how to construct a thesis for the rhetorical situation analysis rather than the strategy analysis. I like this because she has two different paths to take.  Kelly's post taught me how to reconstruct a thesis in a different way by maintaining the general idea. She varied the sentence type and sentence organization to change her thesis and all three were well written. I also like how her thesis was straight to the point. 

Analyzing My Audience

In the post below, I will be answering six questions from A Student's Guide to analyze the audience for the rhetorical analysis of "Genetically Engineered Babies?".

Ninjakeg. "Ocean Park Wiki." March 11, 2008 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

1. Who am I writing for? What are the audiences beliefs and assumptions?

The essay targets incoming engineering students. I am providing an explanation of how somebody in our discipline presents an argument about a specific topic. Because they are new students, they should not have too much knowledge of the debate or how somebody will argue a position in our discipline. However, they could have general knowledge of what genetic engineering actually is.

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

Because the audience is new students, they might not have a strong position either way due to ignorance. However, because these are engineering students chose the engineering field, they might believe genetic engineering is a good thing and an interesting approach to "fixing" problems in our world. I will have to respond to this by considering the alternative but eventually refute it.

3. What will they want to know?

The audience will want to know exactly what designer babies are. In addition, they will want to know exactly why the author of the article believes genetic engineering is unethical. Finally, new students will want to know how to analyze a rhetoric situation in our discipline as well as how to cite in the ASME style (engineering citation).

4. How might they react to my argument?

Because the audience is new students, they will have limited prior knowledge. If I present my argument effectively, they will consider and agree with why designer babies are unethical. Despite this, some readers may disagree completely and believe in the benefits of genetic engineering of embryos.

5. How am I trying to relate or connect to my audience? 

I am analyzing a rhetorical situation for my audience; therefore, I am connecting to them by teaching and informing them of exactly how an argument is presented in our discipline while demonstrating how to dissect such a situation. I relate to the audience because we are both interested in engineering and major e=controversies within our field.

6. Are there any specific words, ideas or modes of organization that will help me relate to them?

The most effective rhetorical strategies for the essay will be logos and pathos. If I present the information logically and understandably, it will be easier for the audience to understand and digest the particular argument. In addition, anyone can relate to pathos; by humanizing an embryo, I will be able to explain why designer babies can be considered "unethical".


Reflection:

Morgan's post explains her audience is psychology students. Because of this, she feels as though logos and pathos will be the most effective argument strategies. I agree with this because the audience is new students; therefore, they will be more susceptible to emotion and agreeability to logic due to their ignorance. Jayni has new engineering students as an audience as well. We both feels as though engineers will want solid and credible facts and information. Jayni mentions how an appeal to  logic will be the most effective and I agree; however, I feel as though pathos would be beneficial as well.

Cluster of "Genetically Engineered Babies?"

In the post below, I will be providing a cluster map of the rhetorical analysis of the article "Genetically Engineered Babies?" by Wynne Parry.

Screenshot taken by me. "Rhetocial Analysis of "Genetically Engineered Babies?". October 7, 2015 via Coggle. Public Domain Dedication.

A bigger image of the rhetorical analysis cluster map of "Gentically Engineered Babies?" can be found here.