Considering Types

In the post below I have identified which type of argument will work best for my issue based on the descriptions given on pages 412-413 of Writing Public Lives.

After reading through the types of arguments and taking into consideration the activity we completed in class, I believe a refutational argument would best suit my issue. Since I am in heavy opposition to aerosol injection and have already confirmed that in previous posts, the only type of argument that suits my belief is a refutational one. I plan on pointing out all of the flaws and fallacies behind this method. Having a severely negative viewpoint, using a refutation argument will greatly help to deliver my point across.

Whitehouse, Phil. "Angry". June 14, 2008 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Had I been focusing on the other geoengineering methods, such as carbon dioxide removal, I would have chosen an evaluative argument. This type of argument would point out all of the reasons why carbon dioxide removal would have been great. It has a very positive type of tone, which is what I would want my audience to take away from it when reading. However, since I am focusing only on the negatives, this type of argument would not be useful for delivering my points.


Reflection:
For this reflection I read through Victoria's My Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types as well as Evan's My Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types. Both of them did a great job at taking into the consideration of the needs of their audience and have chosen good outlets to publish their work on. Although Evan did a good job at analyzing his audience, he didn't provide any examples to where he might publish his work which may make it harder for him in the long run. Victoria also did the same thing as Evan. I feel like having examples to refer back to will be really helpful in the creation process, but to each their own. Victoria's issue has many religious aspects to deal with and she has realized the potential problems they may have, which is great. I am still feeling confident in the outlets I have chosen and believe that I have done a good job at considering the needs of my audience.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In the post below I have addressed how I plan on carrying out my issue for Project 3.

Fakhamzadeh, Babak. "Blog posting flow chart". January 7, 2009 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Audience: I am trying to persuade young adults with my public argument.

• Knowledge: The audience knows very little about this specific issue at hand, but knows that climate change is a real issue. It has been addressed numerous times in the news and has even been discussed by Pope Francis. Some of them may still believe that climate change isn't real, but I will refute that by pointing out the facts and studies completed.

• Standards of argument: Research that points out all of the negative health impacts and environmental impacts will be persuasive for my audience. They, being young, likely aren't interested in the nitty gritty details, and will just want to know the impact it will have on their lives.

• Visual Elements: Simplified bulleted lists, short and quick information. Being a technology driven generation, we want any information given to us to be short and sweet. There should be no guessing on what is trying to be said and it should be visually appealing.

• Purpose: My audience is listening to my argument to expand their understanding of an idea and to be encouraged to take action. My argument is likely to motivate my audience. It is having a negative impact on their day-to-day life and will encourage them to take a stand.

Genre: Video format or a blog post

• The function of a video format is to relay information in a quick and visual manner. Since my audience is primarily younger individuals, they will not have the patience to read through long walls of text. Videos are short and easy to rewatch to retain information.

• The setting of my genre is seen a lot on social media sites. I could see it being used on websites such as Youtube or maybe even CNN. Many articles on CNN have videos attached and is a good outlet for releasing important information.

• Since videos with a lot of information can be monotonous, I will be focusing heavily on pathos. It is much easier to connect to an audience emotionally in a video and it will keep them invested.

• I will implement the use of slides and music. These further help to appeal to the audience's emotions.

• I will be utilizing an informal/conversational style for this genre. I want to be relatable to my audience and be open to their viewpoints on this issue.

ex: YouTube, CNN

• The function of a blog post is to express how one feels about an issue and to get their voice out there. I chose it because I am very opinionated about my issue and a blog post would be a great way to express my thoughts.

• The setting of my genre is seen a lot on news websites or in google searches. I could see it being used on sites such as Tumblr or WordPress.

• Blogs can use hyperlinks and would include a lot of pathos and ethos. The hyperlinks would help to establish my credibility, and since blogs are opinionated I am connecting to my audience on an emotional level.

• I will be utilizing images and possibly short videos if they suit my cause.

• Much like with the other genre this will be semi-informal and conversational.

ex: WordPress, Tumblr

Positive Reactions:

• The public fights to stop geoengineering.
• The audience is encouraged to take more actions to combat climate change.
• The audience will be angry enough to inform others of this issue.

Negative Rebuttals:

• Geoengineering is cheap and easy, why not use it? I will rebuttal by pointing out how other methods are cheaper and better over time.
• Geoengineering will quickly combat climate change. I will rebuttal by pointing out that it is not addressing the root of the issue and will worsen it.
• Climate change is not a "real" issue and was just made up by the government. I will rebuttal by addressing the difference between global warming and the greenhouse effect and provide studies.

Analyzing Purpose

In the post below I have thought about what I plan on adding to the current debate on geoengineering and how my audience might react to it.

Leeson, Evan. "unfolding". May 18, 2009 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

Goal of public argument: What do you want your readers to do, feel, think, believe, etc. as a result of reading it?

• After watching the video I create, I want my viewers to feel motivated to take a stand against geoengineering. Current publishings on the issue do a poor job at connecting to the public. My goal is to make the information presented more relatable to all viewers. By the end of it they should be angered by the fact that this is the way some scientists are trying to "help" combat climate change. These methods do not address the root of the problem and only tries to cover it up.

Plausible Actions/Reactions:

• The audience begins to take a stand against geoengineering
• The audience is more motivated to help combat climate change
• The audience researches more on their own
• The audience is angered by the issue

Not Plausible:

• Geoengineering is abolished due to public outrage
• Scientists reconsider utilizing aerosol injecting
• Everyone goes against geoengineering

Cause/Effect Tracing:

• Cause: Audience researches more individually
• Effect: Searches for better ways to deal with climate change
• Effect: Create rallies/groups that are against geoengineering
• Effect: Develop a better way to deal with climate change

Advancing My Cause:

• The groups of people who are heavily involved in climate activism are the most likely to advance my cause. These people are actively looking for publishings on how to deal with climate change in a positive manner. By studying my issue and why it should be stopped, they are the ones that will take action. They are the ones who will go out and protest geoengineering. They, with the established voices in the public, will inform others of the problems behind geoengineering.

Analyzing Context

In preparation for Project 3, I have identified different perspectives of my of my issue and have answered the questions on page 340 of Writing Public Lives.

Haar, Kate Ter. "Examining Clouds".  April 12, 2012 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

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

• Geoengineering, specifically sulfuric aerosol injecting (SAI), will greatly help to combat anthropogenic climate change.
• Geoengineering, specifically sulfuric aerosol injecting, will do nothing but worsen the already negative impacts anthropogenic climate change has had.

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

• Geoengineering (SAI) is the cheapest and quickest way to combat climate change. Even though it may be cheap and quick, the potential risks aren't worth it and time would be better spent investing time and money into other geoengineering methods.

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

• Climate change has definitely reached a turning point. If it isn't properly addressed soon, by the year 2050 the world will have reached a catastrophic point that it is no longer able to recover from.

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

• Both groups have the same ideological beliefs. The only difference is how they wish to combat climate change. Those who support aerosol injecting don't actually wish to address the source of the problem.

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

• Pro-SAI: Support the concept of aerosol injecting. Totally ignore the central cause of the problems and provide us with funding.
• Anti-SAI: Take a stand against those who support aerosol injecting. These methods do not address the root of the problem and only attempt to cover it up.

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

• Anti-SAI individuals. After all of the research I have completed and all of the beliefs I previously had, I most agree with those that are against geoengineering. Much like them, I believe climate change should be dealt with in a more natural manner, aiming to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Aerosol injecting does not follow this belief and therefore I am against it.

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

• There are no significant threats, but if I had to choose one I guess it would be those who support aerosol injecting. Climate change is a very pressing issue that needs to be addressed soon. SAI would help the issue quickly, but it also has many risks. SAI is also the cheapest method out of any of the currently proposed methods.

Reflection:

For this reflection I read through the posts of Andrea and Sam. Once again Andrea and I have chosen to focus on the same issue. All of our responses were essentially the same even though we have slightly different viewpoints. I feel like I will be able to support my viewpoint more strongly because I have chosen one side of the debate to focus on. Sam also appears to have a very strong opinion on the issue at hand. Having an established opinion will certainly make it easier to contribute to the debate.

Audience and Genre

In the post below I have identified two target audiences for my project and where they might read any publications that I make.

Davies, Brett. "The chosen one". May 8, 2015 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

Audience 1

One audience that might be interested in my topic is individuals who are invested in combating climate change. Many of these people will likely be young adults yearning to make a difference in the world. They will be interested in my research because not only am I addressing how global warming has affected places around the world, but I am also addressing how we could combat it. This audience is likely exasperated by how the government is dealing with these pressing issues and want to make a change.

Publication locations and genres:
This audience will be drawn into sources that are online and that utilize catchy titles and visual aids. Many young adults receive most of their news from sources that contain titles that appear to be interesting (also known as click bait). Although I don't condone this type of advertisement, it has certainly proven to be effective. This audience also enjoys descriptive titles that essentially deliver the point right away so they don't have to pay attention when they read.

Examples: Slate
New York Times

They also prefer websites that include audio clips and short videos. In a technology driven era, young adults want everything handed to them on a silver platter. They want any important information to be brief and to be to the point. This is where visual media comes into play.
Examples: Youtube
CNN

Audience 2

Another audience that may be interested in my topic is individuals who want to follow Pope Francis's words. Many people find Pope Francis to be an inspirational individual. His views on many forefront issues are radically different from his predecessors. He is especially inspirational to young adults around the world. They want to help Pope Francis achieve his visions as he has positively impacted their lives.

Publication locations and genres:
Print genres and multimodal texts are very effective for this type of audience. Many people that heed to Pope Francis's words are often religious and consume their news from conservative media outlets. These outlets often utilize both text and images to deliver their points.

Examples: Drudge Report
Fox News

There are also the young adults that are interested in what Pope Francis has to say .They will receive most of their information from pieces of text mixed in with clips or videos. They want to have the information available in audio form, but also want to be able to read more in depth about it if they wish to do so.

Examples: The Huffington Post
PolicyMic

Extended Annotated Bibliography

Looking forward to the next project and back on the questions from the previous blog post, I have created an annotated bibliography.

My annotated bibliography was created in Google Docs and can be found at this link.

Stevens, Mark. "The Road Ahead (Zion National Park)". November 28, 2013 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

Narrowing My Focus

In the post below I have selected a handful of questions from the previous post and have explained why I think they are important or interesting.

viZZual.com. "On Target". July 10, 2008 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Was the U.S. the first country to address geoengineering as a proposed solution for climate change?

• The documentary I watched implied that other countries were aware of chemtrails and aerosol injecting, so where did the idea originate from? How has it impacted how individuals perceive geoengineering? Depending on where it first came from, people may choose to perceive geoengineering negatively.

How significant of an effect has global warming had on more developed countries around the world?

• This is a fundamental question that deserves an answer. How have countries like China and India dealt with a significant increase in greenhouse gases? Are the proposed geoengineering methods only for more developed countries or for everyone? If geoengineering is meant to appeal to a larger array of people, the way it is addressed in the media will likely differ from how it would be if it were only for the U.S..

Has Pope Francis's recent speeches on climate change altered how the public is addressing climate change?

• Geoengineering is still a concept widely unknown to the general public. In light of Pope Francis's visits and speeches on climate change, it appears that the public was left fuming at his words. Maybe now they have become more aware of the proposed methods for combating climate change and how it will affect them.

Questions About Controversy

In the blog post below I have thought of five questions for each of the 5 W's (Except instead of why it's how) in regards to my controversy on geoengineering.

Over the past two projects I have focused on the debate behind geoengineering and have established a fundamental basis. Even so, there are still many questions that I would like to have answered.

Koshy, Koshy. "Focused". March 4, 2009 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

The Whos

• Who truly founded the method of aerosol injecting? Was it David Keith or Paul Crutzen?
• Who is Dave Wigington and what side does he support?
• Are there any public figures who have directly addressed geoengineering?
• Who first brought geoengineering into the light? Did it come about from a specific event or were scientists just testing different ways to combat climate change?
• If the existence of humans always impacts the environment and alters the Earth's natural cycles then aren't we all geoengineers?

The Whats

• What topic of geoengineering is up for the most debate? Is it aerosol injecting, carbon dioxide removal, or the third-way methods proposed by Tim Flannery?
• What side is more prevalent in the debate? Supporters or anti-supporters?
• What does the public know about these issues and why they are relevant to our lives?
• What does the public find to be most important about geoengineering?
• Has the public's beliefs and values shifted what is up for debate?

The Whens

• When was the concept of geoengineering first introduced?
• When did the media first begin to pick up on geoengineering affecting climate change?
• When was Geoengineering Watch created and how has it affected how people view geoengineering?
• When did sulfuric aerosol injecting come into the field?
• Was it at this time that the concept of geoengineering came up for debate?

The Wheres

• Have any other places aside from California noticed significant effects from chemtrail spraying?
• Was the U.S. the first country to address geoengineering as a proposed solution for climate change?
• Where has most of the testing of these proposed methods been done?
• How significant of an effect has global warming had on more developed countries around the world?
• What areas around the world would benefit the most from the implementation of geoengineering?

The Hows

• Since starting these projects, has there been any significant development in the media?
• Did Pope Francis's letter change how the public is choosing to address climate change?
• Since it has been discussed in the news by many news anchors at this point, is the public finally beginning to realize the pressing threat climate change has?
• When was Geoengineering Watch first created and how has it affected how the media addresses geoengineering?
• Have websites like Twitter and Tumblr addressed the dangers and/or the benefits of geoengineering, or is it still primarily scientists?

Reflection on Project 2

Now that Project 2 has been published I will be reflecting on the project as a whole and answering the questions as found on page 120 of Writing Public Lives.

SA-Venues.com. "Oude Skip Trail". September 19, 2009 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License

What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

• In my original draft, my introduction and conclusion were very spread out an did not focus on the purpose of the paper. After much revision, I finally managed to develop an introduction that drew the reader in using rhetoric and addressed why these strategies are important when publishing things within the field.

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

• My thesis stayed pretty much the same throughout, with some small changes here and there. The most notable changes came from how I organized my paper. Originally, my paragraphs were all over the place; similar topics were separated by new topics and nothing was connected. Once I followed the format presented in my thesis statement everything began to flow smoothly.

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

• The purpose of this assignment was to explain to an incoming freshman the importance of rhetoric. With my original organizational structure my purpose became unclear and confusing. By rearranging it I was able to better aid my audience in understanding why rhetoric is important.

How do these changes affect your credibility as an author? 

• Through effective organizational skills I establish more credibility to myself as an author. By delivering my points concisely and in an easy to understand manner my audience can comprehend the points right away. Showing that I am able to get my point across establishes credibility to myself.

How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

• As incoming freshmen, too much information can often overwhelm their brains (A phenomena that I am currently experiencing as a freshman). By simplifying the ideas that I need to explain it will be much easier for them to understand. They will also see the importance of rhetoric and how it will apply to what they do in their field.

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

• For the most part, my sentence structure didn't have too many issues. There were a few times throughout my paragraphs that the excessive use of pronouns cause the meaning to get lost. I addressed this by restating the subject or the point at hand to make the paragraphs clearer.

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

• By restating the subjects or points throughout, my audience is able to understand what I am discussing. They can pinpoint the specific points I have on rhetorical strategies and why they were or were not effective.

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

• The conventions of a rhetorical analysis are something that has been drilled into my head for years. It is much easier to write a conventional essay because I've been able to practice doing it for so much longer. I only needed to reconsider my audience because I was focusing more on the issues of the documentary rather than why the rhetorical strategies were important when making an argument.

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

• I now know that I have a tendency to be ambiguous when writing, causing my purpose to become lost. In future projects I will need to go back more frequently to reread my sentences in order to see if they make sense and deliver the point I am trying to make.

Reflection:

For this reflection I read through the posts of Samantha and Victoria. After reading through these reflections I've found that we all spent a significant amount of time reworking our theses and introductory paragraphs. This is probably because we spent so much class time discussing the importance of our intros and how we need to effectively draw our audience in. Victoria and I went about revising our papers in the same manner. We both felt our thesis statements were off to a strong start from the get go, so we focused our attention on creating paragraphs that coincided with our theses and shortening sentences to help our audience to understand better. Samantha took a different approach from myself. She spent a lot of time revising her thesis and straying away from the "cookie-cutter" format. It's always interesting to see how my peers go about revising and I hope they all did well on their essays.

Publishing Project 2

The time has once again arrived to publish the final version of our essay.

My rhetorical analysis essay can be found at this link.

ADoseofShipBoy. "Confetti". August 6, 2006 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Punctuation, Part 2

In the post below I have briefly discussed what I have learned after reading three more topics from the punctuation section of Rules for Writers.

The three additional topics I read from the Rules for Writers books were:

1. The semicolon
2. The colon
3. Other punctuation marks

The Semicolon

Semicolons are not something that I commonly use when writing. This section taught me that semicolons should be used between closely related clauses that aren't joined by the words 'but' or 'and'. If you only use a comma the sentence becomes a run-on and loses its meaning.

The Colon

Colons are also another form of punctuation not commonly used in my writing career. This section was pretty self explanatory, such as putting a colon before lists or summaries and explanations. It also taught me that colons should not go after words like "such as", "for example", or "including". These types of words are better suited with a semicolon.

Other Punctuation Marks

There are many other forms of punctuation used when writing. This section discussed when and how to use things such as dashes, parenthesis, and ellipsis. Whenever a dash is used a space should come before and after it, something that I was not previously aware of.  Dashes are primarily used when there is a dramatic shift in tone or thought. The rules for parenthesis and ellipsis's were intuitive so those sections did not teach me much.

Hartley, Linda. "defining learning". January 24, 2010 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

While going through my draft I did not see many instances where semicolons, colons, or punctuation marks were misused. If anything, I certainly had more simple grammatical errors. I was, however, able to find a couple of instances where the use of a semicolon or a colon would have been more effective. 

"When talking with this man about the dangers of high aluminum content in the soil, they are surrounded by a much more positive environment. The sky is clear, the sun is bright . . ."

"Human and the environment, a parasitic relationship that feeds off of one another to survive."

In both of these examples pulled from my draft they would have been much more effective if a semicolon had been added. For the first example, by adding a semicolon I am showing my readers that the two ideas are connected, rather than separated. Adding a semicolon in place of a comma in the second one would also better show how the two ideas are connected. 

Paragraph Analysis 2

In the blog post below I have linked to a copy of my draft that has been analyzed and have identified my strengths and weaknesses.


The draft version with my paragraph analysis can be found here.


Much like with the last project, I either have very weak transitions or none at all. Another one of my weaknesses is being able to connect ideas to one another throughout each paragraph. Overall, I have the general ideas I want to discuss in mind, but need to do a better job at elaborating on them. Properly citing and incorporating evidence will greatly aid my goal to elaborate on topics because I'll have one specific point to focus on.

vgm8383. "Labyrinth". March 8, 2008 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License

Revised Conclusion

In the post below I have published two versions of my conclusion and identified which one serves as a more effective closer.


The Original Conclusion

Murphy effectively uses stimulating elements, such as music, and expert opinions to explain why geoengineering is dangerous. His approach is simplistic, focusing heavily on the emotional responses, but the way he conducts himself really amps up the tension. The audience trusts him and believes him because he has shown that he has reputable sources and that he cares about the well-being of the planet and the environment.

The Revised Conclusion

As society continues to realize the diminishing state of the environment and the resulting impacts, they will begin to look for quick ways to mitigate climate change. It will be the scientific and engineering communities who must rationalize with the panicked public through the publications of their studies. By effectively connecting to the beliefs and values of the public and presenting information in an easy to understand manner, much like Murphy has done, together they can reshape the world. Whether it will be for the better or the worse only time can tell.



When compared to my original conclusion, this revised version is much more effective. Rather than simply restating the thesis, I have attempted to answer why the documentary is an important example in my field. One thing I still need to correct is using only one of the conclusion strategies discussed in the book, as I have mixed the "so what" question with the looking forward. Even so, this version is still more effective than the original and does a better job at closing out the paper.

Baur, Seth. "DSC_0194". July 25, 2008 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Revised Introduction

In this blog post I have included two versions of my introductory paragraph and have explained why one is more successful than the other.


The Original Intro

There have been many movements to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere in this age of primitive green technological advancements. One of the more popular methods among the scientific community and engineers is the use of geoengineering. Geoengineering is the altering of the Earth's natural processes in order to combat climate change, however it can also have many negative side effects. In the 2010 documentary, "What in the World Are They Spraying?", scientist Michael J. Murphy uses expert opinions and visual dynamics to demonstrate his notion of geoengineering being corrupt and dangerous. His mostly American audience of scientists and conspirators are left with feelings of anger and concern as to what their government is trying to achieve. Although Murphy effectively gets his point across, his lack of properly addressing the counterargument makes people question his true motives.

The Revised Intro

Humans and the environment, a parasitic relationship that feeds off of one another to survive. There have been many movements to reduce carbon emissions in this age of primitive green technological advancements. The most popular method among the current scientific and engineering community is the use of geoengineering. Geoengineering is the altering of Earth's natural processes in order to combat climate change, however it can also have many negative side effects. This topic has been of large debate in recent years, and scientists are continually fighting against one another to succeed in bringing these issues to the public's attention. In the 2010 documentary "What in the World Are They Spraying?" scientist Michael J. Murphy uses expert opinions and visual dynamics to demonstrate his notion of geoengineering being corrupt and dangerous. Although his point is effectively delivered, his lack of properly addressing the counterargument makes scientists question his true motives.


Although this new introduction could still use some tweaking, it is off to a much stronger start. When compared to the original, this introduction does a better job at trying to address why Murphy's argument is important in his field. I also removed the bit about Murphy's audience because I felt it would be better suited in a contextual paragraph.

catnipstudio. "MFC- Story Time". July 15, 2009 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In the post below I will be answering the six questions found on page 197 of A Student's Guide as well as identifying whose drafts I reviewed.

For Project 2 peer review I looked over the rough drafts of Mira and Casey

Alvaro. "Water Pyramid". June 24, 2009 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

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?

• My thesis is identifiable and spans over the space of three sentences. However, only two of these sentences could be considered thesis worthy. I identify two specific strategies used by Murphy; the use of expert opinions and visual dynamics.

2. 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?

• My paragraphs seemed to be somewhat scattered. I went from providing some context on the documentary to being very ambiguous and addressing multiple topics at once. I know what points of evidence I will be using, but have not incorporated them into my paper.

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

• I have clearly identified several of the elements of the text's rhetorical situation, but have done a poor job at analyzing them. My ideas are very disjunct and need to be reorganized and reworded in order to be effective.

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 overall effectiveness of the text?

• I addressed how the rhetorical strategies were used by Murphy and have sort of addressed why they were used, but it could be explained more in depth. For most paragraphs I have explained the effects these strategies have on the audience, but they are kind of just thrown in and disrupt the flow of my paper.

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

• Looking back over my draft, I've realized that I explained the evidence's importance without actually including the specific pieces of evidence.

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

• I have not addressed either of these in my conclusion. So far, I have basically restated my thesis and that is it. I still need to answer the "so what" question and end my paper in a way that leaves readers wanting more.

There are many different things I plan on revising. Most of my paragraphs contain suitable explanation, but are missing the evidence that created the analysis and the explanation. The transitions between paragraphs are also lacking and could use some touch-ups. I think the best thing for me to start with is reading my current draft out loud and correcting any glaring errors. From there I will reorganize some of my paragraphs to focus on only one point and to connect ideas to one another throughout the paper.

Punctuation, Part 1

In the post below I have briefly discussed what I have learned after reading three topics from the punctuation section of Rules for Writers.

The three topics I read from the Rules for Writers books were:

1. Unnecessary commas
2. The apostrophe
3. Quotation marks

Varlan, Horia. "Punctuation marks made of puzzle pieces". October 23, 2008 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Unnecessary Commas

One of the biggest things I took away from this section is that commas are not really prevalent in most cases. Although many of us like to put a comma before the words "but" and "and" in compound sentences most of the time they are not necessary. This is because "and" and "but" serve as a links between the two different subject verbs. The section also taught me that if the dependent clause is necessary for the understanding of a sentence no comma should be used. The meaning changes once you incorporate the comma.

The Apostrophe

Most of the content within this section was common sense, adding 's to possessive nouns and not using apostrophes in plural forms of numbers or abbreviations. The most helpful part was the clarification of when to add 's to possessive pronouns. Essentially, almost no possessive pronoun will contain an 's, although it is a very common mistake to add one because it doesn't look right without it.

Quotation Marks

Again, most of the content within this section was common sense, such as only adding quotations for direct quotes and not for paraphrases or summaries. The most helpful part of this section was the advice on quoting within a quote, and when to use single quotations or double. Also, most punctuation goes within the quotation marks unless they are semicolons or colons. 

Reflection:

While peer reviewing my classmates drafts, I noticed that there were many common errors when it came to comma placement and quotations. The book stated that commas and most punctuation typically go within quotation marks, however it was very common for us, myself included, to make the mistake of placing them outside of the quotations. For example, when Casey introduces her article she puts the comma outside of the quotation marks:

In the article "Edward Snowden: The World Says No to Surveillance", the Snowden relies heavily on his public image and ethical appeals to entice the audience to agree with his opinions.

Another common mistake made was misplacing the apostrophe in a possessive noun. In most cases, possessive pronouns are followed by an 's, but for possessive pronouns such as "its" there is no apostrophe. Mira made this mistake in her draft when introducing the topic of her article:

Pope Francis the "super-pope" has flipped the world on it's head (Turrentine p.4).

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Below is a link to my rhetorical analysis rough draft as well as a short paragraph telling my peers what I would like them to look for when reviewing.

For my rhetorical analysis I chose to focus on an hour and a half long documentary on geoengineering. When reviewing my draft I would greatly appreciate any feedback on clarity. Along with that, if you find that some of my claims are weak, or could use more support/be broken up better let me know. Any and all feedback is welcome!

Moy, Theen. "Well-Supported". November 9, 2012 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

The rough draft of my rhetorical analysis can be found at this link.

Practicing Summary & Paraphrase

In the post below I have chosen one quote from the documentary "What in the World Are They Spraying?" and have paraphrased it and summarized it.

Howard, Neil. "Contrails over Saye Bay on Alderney". March 6, 2014 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommerical 2.0 Generic License

Original Source

"You see this [chemtrails] cover the sky and turn it milky and then people have trouble breathing and you hear stories about the aluminum and barium deposits they're picking up in the residue. You put it all together and I don't see how anybody who's got their eyes open and their mind open can come to any other conclusion but that somebody is spending a lot of money and effort to spray the planet. The question is why." - G. Edward Griffin

My Paraphrase of Original Source

When asked about chemtrails, author and documentarian G. Edward Griffin (2010) states that these substances are negatively impacting not only the environment, but the people as well. He, as a man who has spent decades studying chemtrails and contrails, understands the proposed risks of geoengineering and is trying to warn the audience. Griffin believes the government is the culprit behind the spraying , and that their is some kind of ulterior motive.

My Summary of the Original Source

Chemtrail and contrail enthusiast G. Edward Griffin claims that someone [the government] is putting it's citizens and the planets life at risk.

Project 2 Outline

In the blog post below I have constructed an outline for my paper, which was created by focusing heavily on the advice from pages 122-125 of  Writing Public Lives.

One of the most helpful pieces of advice for writing an introduction was to shape it in a way that will help me to achieve my goal or purpose of analysis. Throughout my writings, my introduction always seems  to be somewhat disjunct and out of place because it isn't shaped in a way to aide my text. Another piece of advice that was extremely helpful for this project was the advice to focus on the text itself and not the issue it is discussing. The topic I have chosen is very opinionated and it can be easy to get lost in a sea of wanting to rebuttal against what some of the individuals were saying. However, the purpose of this project is to analyze HOW the author constructed their argument, not WHAT it was about. It is also important to not dwelve into too many different rhetorical strategies. Choosing a couple that really stick out and elaborating on them will keep the paper from going astray, and will also make it less stressful for the writer.

Danley, Brent. "A Puzzle of Paint". March 22, 2008 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

A link to my detailed outline can be found here.


Reflection:
After reading through the posts of Andrea and Mira, I saw that we had very different approaches as to how to create our outline. They both formatted their outline with questions or goals that they wanted to tackle, while I tried to make mine more precise. I feel like their outlines are much more helpful in getting the creative juices flowing. I've identified some of the points from the documentary I wish to discuss, but I feel like I am lacking a lot of direction and clarity. My draft will likely need a lot of editing because at this moment everything seems to be scatter-brained.

Draft Thesis Statements

In the post below I have created three potential theses for my rough draft. They are all "working theses" and will likely be altered as I go through writing my paper.

MacEntee, Sean. "thesis". October 14, 2010 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

1. In the 2010 documentary, "What in the World Are They Spraying?", scientist Michael J. Murphy's use of phrases such as "human health" and "the government" draws in his audience of conspirators and scientists and makes them question what is truly going on. Once entranced by the topic, Murphy emphasizes the importance of the issue with many scientific opinions and interviews. Although he uses these methods wisely, there is a significant lack of a counterargument, which causes some of the scientist to question his true motives.

2. In scientist Michael J. Murphy's 2010 documentary, "What in the World Are They Spraying?" his use of expert opinions and images provokes a response out of his viewers. His audience of mostly American scientists and conspirators are left questioning just what in the world their government is up to. However, Murphy's lack of addressing the counterargument effectively makes many question his true intentions for creating the documentary.

3. In the 2010 documentary, "What in the World Are They Spraying?" scientist Michael J. Murphy uses expert opinions and visual dynamics to demonstrate his notion of geoengineering being corrupt and dangerous. His mostly American audience of scientists and conspirators are left with feelings of anger and concern as to what their government is trying to achieve. Although Murphy effectively gets his point across, his lack of properly addressing the counterargument makes people question his true motives.


After rereading through the three theses statements I created, I feel like the first one would be the most difficult to develop. The phrasing was poorly constructed, meaning it would be hard to create a strong analysis. The other two were constructed better, and will allow for a better analysis of the rhetorical strategies used by Murphy. In particular, I feel like the third statement will be the easiest to develop. The inclusion of "visual dynamics" and "expert opinions" will provide a nice backbone for a rhetorical analysis. This thesis also better states the flaws in Murphy's argument.




Reflection:
For this exercise I read through the posts of Casey and Mira. They both had well-developed work in progress thesis statements. Mira's theses really stuck out to me. She clearly identified the rhetorical strategies used by her author without being too rambly or too short. It makes me want to revise my own theses to better suit the beliefs of my audience and to shorten it up. Casey also had relatively short thesis statements. That is one thing that I really need to work on when I write. I tend to ramble a lot.

Analyzing My Audience

In the blog post below I have provided detailed answers to the six bulleted questions in the "Identifying Your Audience" section of Student's Guide.

ransomtech. "Understanding". June 8, 2011 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

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

• There are two distinct audiences I am writing for, one of them with more significance than the other. The primary audience is new and incoming students in the science/engineering field. They are not entirely sure what to believe, but they are looking to better the environment through science. The secondary audience are those who care about the environment or believe in conspiracies. Together these groups believe in bettering the world without putting themselves at risk and wish for the government to assist them in this vision.

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

• They are likely to be against the use of geoengineering, and will likely side with author Murphy's position. I can respond to this viewpoint by emphasizing the points Murphy brings up about the dangers of geoengineering. 

What will they want to know?

• The audience will want to know what the effects of implementing such methods will do to the environment. They will also be interested to know how the government is involved and how it will impact their lives.

How might they react to my argument?

• They will likely support my argument that Murphy's rhetorical approaches were successful. His use of expert opinions and display formats really help to carry out his point that geoengineering has a corrupt purpose and that the government doesn't care.

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

• I am trying to relate to my audience by showing them we have the same beliefs and concerns. We want to create a better world, but in the correct way and not just for money.

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

• The use of words such as "negative health effects" and "money grubbing officials" will help connect me to my audience. By showing them that I am truly invested in the betterment of the world will allow them to place their trust in me.

Reflection:

After looking through the posts of Mira and Andrea I saw that we were all focusing on somewhat similar topics. All of the texts we've chosen to analyze deal with climate change in some way, whether it be in support or against it. Mira clearly identified her audience of environmental scientists and explained how she would focus on their beliefs to aid her argument. On the other hand, Andrea went with a broader approach of all engineers, so it may be a bit harder to develop an effective argument. Looking back at my own post I feel like it was well developed. However, I realize that it is less important to mention the secondary audience in this post, although it should still be addressed in my actual draft.

Cluster of "What in the World Are They Spraying?"

Below I have embedded an image of the cluster map I created on Coggle. In my cluster not only did I identify the audience and purpose for "What in the World Are They Spraying?", but I also identified some of the key rhetorical strategies used by the author. By identifying the key strategies used and elaborating on them it will be much easier to write an effective rhetorical analysis.

York, Chelsea. "Screenshot from my computer". October 12, 2015

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "What in the World Are They Spraying?"

In this blog post I will be analyzing how "What in the World Are They Spraying" appeals to one's credibility and character, emotions, and logic, and their subsequent effectiveness.

Ingodsgarden, Lyn. "Chemtrails NOT Contrails". November 6, 2010 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Appeals to Credibility or Character

• Murphy continually references to credible sources, acknowledges the counterargument and refutations, and appeals to the values or beliefs shared by the audience.

• Whenever Murphy interviews or mentions a new person, he always prefaces with their background information. For example, when introducing G. Edward Griffin, Murphy state that, "Before we started filming we had the opportunity to sit down with one of our favorite authors and documentarians G. Edward Griffin. . .". Even when referring to the opposing sides leader, David Keith, Murphy provides context.

• The fact that Murphy interacts with so many scientists gives him the appearance of being credible. He plays on the sense of protecting the people and looking out for them in order appeal to his audience.

• Knowing that Murphy invested so much time into researching the different individuals he interacted with makes the documentary more effective. He also makes himself seem more relatable - always looking out for the betterment of the public. It draws the audience in and captivates them because they feel like they can trust Murphy and his opinions.

• One of the biggest problems with Murphy is that he has a tendency to assume that the government is conspiring against its people. Although it draws some individuals in, others will see him as a psychopath that follows conspiracy theories, making him seem less credible.

Appeals to Emotion

• Throughout the documentary there are references to personal stories, keywords are repeated many times, statistics are used, and the music changes with the mood.

• By using these appeals, Murphy is trying to spark anger and concern out of his audience. The repetition of keywords such as "the government" or "human health" are especially good at achieving this. For example, he takes a clip from a government meeting in New Zealand and focuses on when the man says, "They claim the American government, with the secret approval of the national government is covertly using geoengineered aircraft to spray population segants with aluminium, barium and strontium . . .". The fact that the government is apparently doing this in secrecy is meant to anger the audience.

• The clips and language Murphy uses effectively causes the audience to be both angry and concerned. People are more likely to be invested in an issue if it seems like it is directly impacting their lives. It makes them wonder why the government is implementing these methods and why they don't seem to care about the people that they are supposed to be protecting.

• Considering the audience, people who care deeply about the environment or conspiracy theorists, the emotional appeals used help to establish credibility. By presenting information on certain findings and following up with the health effects it creates a foundation that the audience can recognize. The predictable format keeps the documentary flowing and helps to emphasize the particular emotions Murphy is trying to portray.

Appeals to Logic

• In order to appeal to the audiences' logic, Murphy conducts interviews or has expert opinions, uses statistics, and arranges clips in a certain way for emphasis.

• By employing these strategies, Murphy comes across as a well-rounded individual who knows what he is talking about. When the audience knows that the author has refutable sources and has clearly done an adequate amount of research they are more likely to be open to other points of view. 

• For example, around the 6:20 mark, Murphy inserted an image with the statistical data for the amount of aluminum in the atmosphere. Not only does it visually aid the reader, but it helps them to connect different strings of information together. The image mentions coagulation rates, and if one knows what that means they can understand why sulfuric aerosol injections are particularly dangerous. It seems ridiculous to inject something into the atmosphere that could harm us, and appeals to the audiences' sense of logic.

Reflection:

For this reflection I again read through the posts of Laurence and Chloe. The analysis of appeals in Chloe's text about audiobooks was well done, but there was a significant lack of quotes. The usage of quotes allows the reader to easily see how these appeals are being portrayed. Laurence's use of quotes made it easier for me to understand how passionate his author was about cars, and even though I'm not a car expert I could understand the points he was trying to get across. I feel like my own post was well-developed, but could have been a bit clearer with the transitions between points. It also seems like either credibility or emotional appeals will be the strongest points when doing our analysis.

Analyzing Message in "What in the World Are They Spraying?"

In this blog post I will be analyzing the message and purpose of my text and answering the questions as found on page 181 of Student's Guide.


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 bullet points that seemed most relevant to the goals of my author were the ones about persuading an audience of something and trying to move the readers to feel a certain way. Murphy's main purpose for creating the documentary was to create a ruckus out of his audience. He wanted them to be outraged by how the government was addressing climate change, and to take a stand against it. He felt that aerosol spraying is not what this country or the world needs, and wanted others to feel the same.

Barry. "Global changes". July 9, 2005 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

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

• The bullet points that seemed the least relevant to the goals of my author were the ones pertaining to reflecting on a topic or responding to a particular occasion. Although Murphy is technically reflecting on the discussions brought up at a science convention, it is not his main focus. He is looking to invoke a response out of his audience and to get them to participate. His research and emotional appeals stems from the initial event, but that's about it.

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?

• There are very subtle nuances and layers present in Murphy's message. Throughout the documentary he mentions that the American government is working for the national government, and that they are "doing it for the people". These messages seem to subtly imply that the government is in cahoots with the national government and that they are aiming to reduce the global population to better their lives.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

In this blog post I will be analyzing the cultural values I share with the text I have chosen and why these values have lasted over time. All of the questions being answered come from page 80 of Writing Public Lives.

Leeson, Evan. "The Web that is Us". October 7, 2006 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

• We share the desire for a better world without putting ourselves at risk. The time for going to war over conflicts has long since passed, and we thirst for a productive future. When it seems like the government isn't supporting us, we tend to retaliate. This country was founded on the principle of listening to its people after all.

What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?

• We do not share the belief that the public is stupid and is unaware of what is going on. Although most of us would prefer to shield ourselves from the truth, we are certainly aware of its presence. Feigning ignorance is our way of coping with the harsh reality that we are in danger and that we are partially to blame.

If text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what values connect to our culture? What values can we not see in our own culture?

• Since this documentary was filmed and produced in our culture, these questions are not necessarily relevant. However, it can be tied in to other cultures around the world because climate change does not just affect us. 

If written in our culture but in a different era, how have the values developed or changed over time?

• Even though this documentary was only published five years ago, there has been a significant shift society's way of thinking. Climate change is on the forefront of our minds and we are frantically looking for solutions to reverse it. These methods mentioned in the documentary are becoming more favored because they could quickly mitigate climate change at a cheap cost. Human health effects have all but been cast out the window, and the focus now is primarily on nature.

Reflection:

For this reflection I read through both Laurence's and Chloe's blog posts. While Laurence agreed with his author's viewpoint on cars, Chloe disagreed with her author's viewpoint on audiobooks. Even if you heavily agree or disagree with the author, it is important to not let those biases effect how you analyze the text. I feel that those who tend to disagree with the author's viewpoints will have a much more interesting analysis, as they will focus a lot more on the counterargument.