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.