 |
| 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.
I agree with your evaluation of your work. I think they sound similar but the first one loses the point a bit. You don't want them to become too long because then the audience can get lost before the article is even getting to the good stuff. But you did a very good job at following to what the book was saying and included the main points. I specifically liked how you brought the counter argument into the thesis statement.
ReplyDeleteI liked the third thesis statement the most, it definitely gives you that strong backbone you mentioned. I feel like the other two have strong transitions and points, but would be more apt at the beginning of one of your body paragraphs. The third thesis is more general and gives a broader idea of what you will be writing about while the first 2 I thought were a bit more limiting. Overall they are all very well written and great introductions to your main topics. You have some great really clear rhetorical strategies to analyze. Mine are a little up in the air and definitely need some work in editing.
ReplyDelete