Reflection on Open Letter Draft

In this blog post, I will be answering some questions from A Student's Guide To First-Year Writing about the open letter draft I just wrote.

"Kittens Wallpaper". Via Fanpop. Public Domain License.

I peer reviewed Stef's open letter draft.

1. I feel like I demonstrated my ability to reflect and think about my writing doing this draft. I went over past blog posts and thought about how I have or have not changed in my opinion.

2. Yes I did provide analysis of my writing experiences by talking about my high school english classes and comparing them to this english course.

3. Concrete examples that I put in were in the form of quotations when I was discussing how my writing process changed over the semester. I could definitely put some more quotes in to add more examples though.

4. I didn't directly say "this is why I did X, Y, and Z", however my analysis of the course included what I was thinking and how I felt about certain assignments and the course layout in general. So, I'd say that counts as an explanation.

5. I used a lot of concepts related to organization and the conventions of writing a letter when making this draft. After I wrote down all of my main thoughts and ideas, I went back and read what I wrote and moved a lot of full paragraphs around to make it an easier read. Also, I kept in mind what sort of language I should be using in this genre.

6. Doing this writing assignment engaged habits like avoiding procrastination which I learned how to do during this course actually.

7. Challenges I face while writing this assignment included sitting down and taking the time to look back over all of the blog posts we've done this semester because it was kind of tedious, especially when I knew that I wasn't going to be talking about even half of them.

8. I can use my time management skills and brainstorming to help me with future writing assignments. They will allow me to work more efficiently and manage my stress level and work load as well.

Draft of Open Letter

In this blog post, I will be sharing my rough draft of the open letter for our final. In addition, I'll be telling what my peers should look for when peer reviewing this.

I would really like my classmates to look at the length of my letter and see if it's appropriate or not. Also, the introduction sounds a little confusing to me because I feel like I'm jumping from thought to thought with no clear focus, so help with that would be much appreciated!!

Here is the link to my draft.

Reflecting More On My Writing Process

In this blog post, I will be answering questions in order to reflect on my writing process even further.

"Golden Retriever Puppies". 12/26/09 via Flickr. CC Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. Towards the beginning of the semester, I really just struggled getting the motivation to do all of the blog posts; at times they felt really tedious and unnecessary. Making the first draft of the projects was also hard because I actually had to put all of my brainstorming in the blog posts to use.
2. I learned that I can actually manage my time better than I ever have before and that my writing skills always have room for improvement and I feel like they definitely have improved this semester.
3. Genre refers to the style of writing to use (tone, sentence structure, etc.) as well as keeping in mind the audience and purpose of the piece being written. Understanding what a genre is will help you better communicate with your specific audience which is what essentially makes your writing leave an impact on people.
4. Because I'm an engineering major, writing isn't going to be a huge part of my major. However, the writing skills I developed will help when writing up reports as well as researching topics.
5. My most effective writing moment was when I was revising my final draft for project 2. I was just really focused and I ended up doing really good on it so that made me happy:)
6. My least effective moment was the entire week of deadline 2 because I barely did any of the work in a timely fashion and I also didn't follow the conventions of blogging so I got bad grades on those.

Revisiting My Writing Process

In this blog post, I will be reflecting on my writing process and how it has or has not changed over the course of the semester.


I feel as though overall, I am the same kind of writer in the sense that I still write how I speak which makes it pretty easy for me to get my point across (most of the time). However, my actual writing process has definitely changed a bit. In my blog post entitled "My Writing Process" from the beginning of the year, I wrote that "I am definitely a heavy reviser" with components from "procrastination and heavy planning". But looking back, I did the bulk of the work for the 3 projects in the very first draft so heavy revising wasn't really necessary. The first project definitely included a lot of procrastination and not so much heavy planning. As the semester progressed, the procrastination isn't a super big component of my writing process anymore (thank god!!).

"Cutest Little Cub". 7/13/15 via Flickr. CC Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

It took me a while to get into the swing of things after looking back at my blog post entitled "Calendar Reflection" which is why the procrastination was so prominent with project 1. About half way through the semester, I definitely started following the calendar I planned on at the beginning of the year. My time management has improved because I really had no choice, there's always something to do so it was easy to keep myself busy. This really made my stress level decrease because I always felt better after getting things done little by little. I'm hoping to improve my self motivation skills (it's still a struggle sometimes), but in the next 2-3 years I think I'm going to be really good at it.

Reflection on Project 3

In this blog post I will be answering questions from Writing Public Lives in order to reflect on project 3.

Daniel, Brandon. "Baby Elephant Running". 6/19/09 via Flickr. CC Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. From the first draft to my final draft, I addressed the "how" and "so what" questions much more in depth  based on the feedback I got from Stef in her peer review of my draft.

2. I didn't really have to reconsider either my thesis nor the order my paragraphs and ideas went.

3. I did reconsider my audience and their background knowledge a bit when revising my rough draft and felt that adding more statistics would help them to better understand the greater issue at hand than just hydraulic fracking.

4. I think the changes I made made me more credible because it forced me to add more evidence to back up my argument.

5. The changes will help them understand the world energy issue I was mainly discussing.

6. I split a lot of sentences up to better convey the point I was trying to make.

7. To me, I feel like short sentences are straight and to the point so the readers don't get lost in the words or phrasing, so that helps make my points more efficiently.

8. I reconsidered some conventions of a letter and had to remind myself to keep things casual and don't act like I'm writing a paper because an essay and a letter are two very different things.

9. Reflecting on what I did to get to my final draft for project 3 forced me to go over what I was thinking when making the changes I had to make. It helped me understand how I process and fix things for writing assignments.

Publishing Public Argument

In this blog post, I will be publishing my public argument for project 3 as well as filling out the following information regarding it.

Suzor, Nicolas. "Kittens". 5/22/08 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Here is the link to my final draft.

1. Mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue (before reading/watching/hearing your argument) below:

←------------------------------------x----------------|--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

2. Now mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience should be (after they've read/watched/heard your argument) below:

←--------x--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

3. Check one (and only one) of the argument types below for your public argument:

         _______ My public argument establishes an original pro position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument establishes an original con position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument clarifies the causes for a problem that is being debated.

         ____x___ My public argument proposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument positively evaluate a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm supporting).

         _______ My public argument openly refutes a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm refuting).

4. Briefly explain how your public argument doesn’t simply restate information from other sources, but provides original context and insight into the situation:

The debate on hydrofracking never brought up the fact that this wouldn't be an issue if people were more environmentally conscious and conservative of the energy and water they used. My argument is original because it gets down to the root of the problem which is in fact us.

5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employedi n your public argument below:

Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that establish a credible point-of-view

                    _____ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)

                    __x___ Employing carefully chosen key words or phrases that demonstrate you are credible (proper terminology, strong but clear vocabulary, etc.)

                    _____ Adopting a tone that is inviting and trustworthy rather than distancing or alienating

                    _____ Arranging visual elements properly (not employing watermarked images, cropping images carefully, avoiding sloppy presentation)

                    _____ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate images of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)

                    _____ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)

                    __x___ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently

                    ___x__ Appealing openly to the values and beliefs shared by the audience (remember that the website/platform/YouTube channel your argument is designed for helps determine the kind of audience who will encounter your piece)

                    _____ Other: 

Emotional appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Telling emotionally compelling narratives drawn from history and/or the current culture

                    ___x__ Employing the repetition of key words or phrases that create an appropriate emotional impact

                    __x___ Employing an appropriate level of formality for the subject matter (through appearance, formatting, style of language, etc.)

                    _____ Appropriate use of humor for subject matter, platform/website, audience

                    ___x__ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point

                    _____ Use of imagery to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Employing an attractive color palette that sets an appropriate emotional tone (no clashing or ‘ugly’ colors, no overuse of too many variant colors, etc.)

                    _____ Use of music to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Use of sound effects to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    __x__ Employing an engaging and appropriate tone of voice for the debate

                    _____ Other: 

Logical or rational appeals

                    _____ Using historical records from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    __x___ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    _____ Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position

                    _____ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position

                    _____ Effective organization of elements, images, text, etc.

                    __x___ Clear transitions between different sections of the argument (by using title cards, interstitial music, voiceover, etc.)

                    _____ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments

                    _____ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument

                    _____ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)

                    _____ Other: 

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

In this blog post, I will be discussing not only my own draft but the drafts that I peer reviewed as well.

I peer reviewed Stef's and Joy's drafts. The links will take you to the peer review worksheet I had completed for each of them.

"Examination Homework Correction Red Pencil Marks". 2013 via Pixabay. Creative Commons Public Domain License.

1. Stef reviewed my rough draft for project 3.

2. She gave me pretty good advice as to when I should expand on some ideas I had towards the end of my letter. Also, she answered the question I was looking for which was regarding the length of my letter and her feedback about that was helpful. Other common things like confusing sentences were also recognized that I wouldn't have notice on my own.

3. I think argumentation will need the most work for me because I didn't expand on all the ideas I had and they all just kind of ended up mentioned but nothing more than that.

4. I feel a lot better after Stef peer reviewed my draft, it's always nice getting feedback on something I wasn't too sure about. I know what I need to do to improve and that was the whole point.

Draft of Public Argument

Here is the link for my ROUGH draft for project 3.

I'd like some feedback on the length and amount of content and whether you guys think I need to say more or provide more evidence which supports my argument. Thanks!

"Cute Animal". 8/28/12 via Deviant Art. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Considering Visual Types

In this post, I will be exploring the visual effects I might be using in project 3 by answering 6 questions from Writing Public Lives.

"Rainbow Eyes". 7/13/08 via Deviant Art. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

The background for my project could very well just be plain white because it is a letter.
 I feel like I'm pretty limited with my visual choices because of the genre I'm writing in.

I think I might include pictures of graphs or other relevant items in my letter anyways even though they usually aren't included in them.

Blocks of text will split up the images included.

The images will be in very close proximity to the argument because some might even serve as solid evidence if they are graphs.

I hadn't really thought about image sequencing, but I just plan on putting them right before or after I've discussed the relevance of it.

The theme produced by the images could be relevant to the theme as a whole depending on what images I decide to use. If there are graphs, that wouldn't really fit with the rhetorical element I chose to focus on which is pathos, but it would be very relevant information and important for my audience to know.

Project 3 Outline

In this blog post, I will be creating an outline for project 3 using the book as guidelines.

Introduction
I will be connecting the issue at hand to my audience's world view. I'm going to be arguing that hydraulic fracturing would not be such an issue if fossil fuels-like the natural gas that they're drilling for-weren't in as high of demand. They wouldn't be in this high of a demand if every single person in the world only used the amount of energy/power they needed. I will continue on to encourage my audience to advocate saving energy and 'going green' thoughtfully and carefully because once we run out of fossil fuels, they can't come back or be renewed.

"Light Bulb, Idea, Concepts". via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

Body

Major Supporting Arguments

• reasons for hydrofracking 
• demand for renewable vs. nonrenewable energy sources 
• applications of nonrenewable energy sources
• statistics on how much energy is wasted/not used efficiently

Major Criticisms

• How will these companies stay afloat and make money without this?
• people should use alternate energy sources for day to day things
• people who don't care about the environment

Key Support Points

• Energy use graphs and statistics (increasing more than it should be) 
• Enormous dependence on fossil fuels (a nonrenewable energy source that also causes tons of air and water pollution) in the United States
• Low energy efficiency
• Basic facts and main 2 sides of hydrofracking issue

Rebuttal Points

• Solar and wind energy as alternative for those who are against the use of fossil fuels by hydrofracking
• Many could say that what sort of energy you use is a personal choice and based on what you personally believe. In other words, the type of energy you use only effects you but I need to prove why this is not true, so I'll talk about how every household contributes to the energy crisis we are having today. We are kind of all in it together; if we are still so dependent on fossil fuels and they run out in time, they'll run out for all of us.
• Many could say that we don't need to worry about this issue now because fossil fuels won't run out in the next 20 years. I need to bring up our future generations and how our actions right now affect the entire world and the future of it.

Topic Sentences for Key Support Points

• Our perception of how much energy we are using is quite different from how much we are actually using, and beyond that the efficiency of the energy we do use is only at about 60%. This means that 40% of a large amount of energy in every single household is being wasted.
• Nonrenewable energy sources, like the fossil fuels that are dug up through hydraulic fracturing, are being used for virtually every main component of our lives: transportation, businesses, heating and cooling systems, and more.
• Hydraulic fracturing puts the lives of people living in the areas it is happening in danger for natural gas and has become more popular because the demand for it is so high. 

Topic Sentences for Rebuttal Points

• Although many people believe that solar and wind energy are reasonable alternatives for fossil fuels, the processes in how to capture a significant amount of this kind of energy have not been perfected yet, so in the meantime we need to do something about the problem at hand now.
• I'm sure a lot of people think that one person or family won't make much difference if they change how they use energy, but they are wrong.
• The energy crisis needs to be confronted and resolved for the sake of the future, and sometimes it's hard for us to think longterm but if we go at the rate we are at right now, our grandchildren will definitely not have as bright a world as we do now.

Evidence was included in the form of hyperlinks in the key support and rebuttal points sections.

Conclusion

For my conclusion, I will be calling my audience to take action and change how they use energy in their residence and businesses. The whole purpose of this was to get people to do something about the crisis at hand and then stop the high demand for fossil fuels through hydraulic fracturing.

Follow this link to view my cluster map.

Reflection
I read Hunter's and Olivia's outlines and they were helpful because they were both really strong outlines so I could compare it to see how strong mine was afterwards. I liked how we had to make cluster maps because it provided a better visual and was easier to read.

Analyzing My Genre

In this blog post, I will be answering questions specific to the genre (a letter format) I will be writing in for project 3.

Forsyth, Ellen. "Fiction/genre Sign". 6/4/11 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Examples of my Genre:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
Example 6


Social Context

• This genre is typically set in magazines and journals.
• The subject of the genre is specific to the individual letters, but a clear format is usually followed. 
• Individuals and organized groups of people typically use this genre.
• This genre is used as a form of communication like talking on the phone and also to address a group of people or subject of issue.

Rhetorical Patterns of the Genre

• The type of content included is specific to the purpose of the letter. Usually opinions and personal thoughts are included across the board.
• Pathos would be the rhetorical appeal most commonly used because it is personal.
• Letters start with "Dear..." and then are divided into separate paragraphs like an essay. They are signed at the bottom. 
• Sentence pattern is specific to who is writing the letter and what they are writing about.
• Conversational, casual word choice is commonly used in letters, so slang could easily be included. However, it could get more formal depending on the purpose of the letter.

Rhetorical Pattern Analysis

• The genre includes whoever the letter is addressed to.
• It encourages personal expression and opinions for other writers.
• Values of this genre could be to respect others' beliefs but still forming responses to them.
• Forming responses to others' opinions is the most valuable while respecting them is the least valuable.

Reflection

I read Bailey's and Hunter's blog posts analyzing their genres. They are both doing different genres than me so it was interesting reading about them. Both have a clear idea of the conventions of their genres and look to be in good shape for project 3 right now.

Considering Types

In this blog post, I will be deciding what type of argument I will be implementing in project 3.

"The Argument". 2011 via Sketchport. CC Attribution 4.0 License.

I plan on using evaluative and causal arguments in project 3.  The main purpose is to present my argument and trigger some sort of responsive action in my audience so I feel like telling them why some policies aren't working (evaluative) will be affective. Getting down to the cause of this issue will also help me lead into what I think and feel about it. I can't use a proposal argument because I don't have a solution to offer to fix the problem. Refutation wouldn't work for me either because my main goal is not to prove others wrong, but to say what I feel about it. I will not be "devoted almost entirely to refuting an idea" as a refutation argument is described to do.

Reflection

For rhetorical action plans, I read Stef's blog post and she seems to know exactly what to do for project 3. I commend her for that. We both are using visuals to help our argument as well as logos. I also read Grace's blog post. These both helped me to reflect on what I put in my plan and a lot of our stuff is similar although we have different topics.

For "Considering Types", I read Hunter's blog post as well as Joy's. They aren't going to be using the same arguments as me, so it was interesting to read about how they reasoned through which would work best for their specific argument.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this blog post, I will be looking into how I plan to write my argument for project 3.

Major, Ted. "Rhetorical Triangle". 1/13/14 via Flickr. CC Attribution 2.0 License.

Audience

• Knowledge: My audience knows a good amount about what my topic is about. This would be the basics of the hydrofracking process, possibly areas it's happening in, and also why the topic is controversial. Depending on who they are, they could definitely have opinions on it already. The environmentalists would most likely all be against fracking while people that aren't necessarily directly involved could be indifferent. 
• Values: Environmentalists value keeping the world a safe, clean, healthy place to live. While those who favor fracking might value the same ideas, they don't carry out their beliefs as true environmentalists do.
• Standards of Argument: I think images, interviews, videos, and other visual research will greatly affect my audience. When there is something they can see, it will be much easier for them to believe and trust what my argument is.
• Purpose: I am encouraging my audience to take action in whatever way they want to. I'm not asking them to agree with everything I will be arguing nor am I telling them what to do. I want my audience to listen to my argument so they can get a different perspective and then go from there.

Genre

• The genre I will be using is blogging. Examples can be found here, here, here, and here.
• Function: It is not formal and totally about what the blogger thinks and feels which is the point of project 3. 
• Setting: This could be published on social media like Facebook or in an online forum like Huffington Post or Washington Post.
• I plan on using pathos and logos more than ethos because I really don't have that much credibility when you compare me to other people speaking their opinions on hydrofracking. Pathos and logos will be a safer route for me and will make the most sense to my audience.
• I will be using images and possibly videos if I can find them.
• For style, I will probably be somewhere between conversational and academic.

Responses/Actions

Positive Reactions:

• People would realize how much of an issue this process is.
• People would want to take action in their own way and do their part in keeping our environment safe.
• Those capable and qualified would think of other solutions and alternatives to hydrofracking.

Negative Reactions:

• What is your solution to this problem?
• How else will we be able to get all of this cheap fuel then? Prices for energy will rise and not many people can afford that right now.
• My audience could just simply not listen to anything in my argument and take nothing from it.

Analyzing Purpose

In this blog post, I will be answering a few questions on what I want my purpose of project 3 to be.

Davis, Don. "Coast Impact". 8/10/11 via Wikipedia. Public Domain License.

1. I want my readers to be more in tune with the dangers of fracking. But beyond that, I want them to recognize that there is a huge energy problem in the world today and that we can't keep relying on nonrenewable sources of energy like the natural gas hydrofracking is going after. If we find alternate sources of energy and understand how to utilize them efficiently, then this whole problem will go away.


2. Plausible Actions: I think it's very likely that my readers will feel a bit scared and maybe even guilty after reading what I have to say about hydrofracking. Because I will be shedding light on the big picture (worldwide energy problems), my audience will then think about what they have done wrong and how they themselves have wasted energy that comes from nonrenewable sources. Hopefully, this will spark something in them and help change their ways and be a bit more environmentally conscious of the energy they use and why it's important to control that.

Not Plausible Actions: I highly doubt that any kind of anger will be a reaction to my opinion. I don't plan on blaming anyone or being harsh, I simply plan on stating facts that will be shocking to most of my readers.


3. The plausible action I'm focusing on is raising awareness about the energy issues worldwide. I believe that raising awareness to this very real problem will cause my readers to want to change their ways and/or help to protest harmful environmental processes like hydrofracking. They will understand that obtaining fossil fuels like natural gas only increases the negative effects on the environment, wastes water, and contributes to the energy problem. More protests against fracking could be a possible result or cutting down on their energy use could also happen.


4. The people most likely to help my cause would be environmentalists. They have such a passion for keeping the environment clean and safe, so naturally they would want to contribute as much as they can to bettering the world as well as helping others see how to do that. I'm hoping that this particular audience will go to greater lengths to help this cause once they fully realize the contribution hydrofracking makes to the energy problem with the world.

Analyzing Context

In this blog post, I will be answering several questions about the context of the controversy I am doing project 3 on.

"Context Logo". 4/22/09 via Wikipedia. Public Domain License. 

1. Schools of thought on my controversy have a lot to do with environmentalism, tying in with politics. Many people believe that it's politicians' jobs to control the messes that hydrofracking has or has threatened to cause in areas it is being performed. Another school of though is that hydrofracking allows for very cheap energy in very large quantities, which is a main part of the reason this topic is controversial.

2. Major disagreements between these schools of thought is that the anti-fracking side believes no amount of energy is worth damaging the environment as well as putting the lives of people living in these areas in jeopardy. The pro-fracking side disagrees and thinks that cheap energy will do this the world wonders because the demand for energy is continuing to grow.

3. The main point of agreement between these perspectives would be that the world today needs energy to function.

4. Supporters of fracking must value the overall quality of life in a country more than the quality of a few thousand that live in areas where fracking is going on. Those against fracking must value the health and safety of the environment and must also see the big picture and how our actions today affect the future of the world.

5. Those against fracking ask their audience to understand where they are coming from when expressing their concerns over this. They also obviously ask these drilling companies to end fracking unless they can do it safely.

6. The perspective against hydrofracking will be the most useful to me when doing this project because there are lots of layers and reasons why these people are so against it. Protests have been going on for years and there still hasn't been much of a change so the reason for their determination will help me build my own argument.

7. The fact that hydrofracking does bring so much energy from the earth will be a threat to my argument because I don't have any alternatives to how we could be getting the oil and natural gas.


Reflection
I read Stef's blog post and she wrote a lot more than I did when answering the questions, so maybe I should think about analyzing the context a bit further. She seems to really know what she's talking about and is very passionate about health. I hope that's how I sound about my topic. I also read Gabee's blog post and it was much shorter than Stef's and mine. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but she might want to think a bit more in detail about what exactly the context is and how that will help her formulate her own argument.

Audience and Genre

In this blog post, I will be identifying some of my possible targeted audience for project 3.


1. Young, passionate environmentalists living anywhere in the world would definitely be a group of people that would be interested in what I have to say for this assignment. As environmentalists, they value obviously going green and protecting the environment. Hydrofracking poses a threat to the environment, so that's why they'd be part of my audience. I could publish my information in a scientific magazine/journal like Nature. Examples can be found here.

"Theater Audience". 9/28/10 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

2. People living in areas affected by fracking-specifically New York, rural Pennsylvania, and Colorado-are also part of the targeted audience for project 3. Because they are living in the areas where fracking is taking place, and they have personally experienced it, of course they'd be wanting to know more about it. Because these are essentially your average everyday citizens, this could be published virtually anywhere but social media would be good as almost everyone uses some form of it. Common websites like Huffington Post would also be an appropriate place to publish this.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

Here is the link to my annotated bibliography for project 3. Here's a cute pic of some puppies (again).

"Jack Russel Terrier Puppies". 9/12/09 via Wikipedia. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Narrowing My Focus

In this blog post, I will identify a few questions I would like to focus on for project 3.

"Postage stamp viewed through magnifying glass". 3/24/08 via Wikipedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. How has the media played a role in the controversy?

I think this question opens up a lot of doors for me and will allow me to bring a different opinion to the table which is the whole purpose of project 3.

2. What cultural movements were surrounding the time this became a controversy?

This question is really interesting to me and I like it. Culture and society have a huge effect on how we perceive things which could explain why hydrofracking is the controversy that it is today.

3. Are there groups of people protesting or advocating the continuation of hydraulic fracking? Who is in these groups?

I also really like this questions. Looking into how other people are reacting could also help me develop my own take on everything that's going on with this issue. I think it'll enable me to incorporate multiple different stances into my own personal stance.

Questions About Controversy

In this blog post, I will begin working on project 3 by proposing questions about the controversy with hydraulic fracturing.

"Who What When Where Why How". via Wikipedia. Public domain license.

WHO
1. Who are the strongest voices in this debate/controversy?
2. Who is this affecting?
3. Are their groups of people protesting or advocating for the continuation of hydrofracking? Who's in these groups?

WHAT
1. What is happening that is causing this to be such a big controversy?
2. Have any other issues come up because of this?
3. What are the main points of the debate (from both sides)?

WHEN
1. When did the issue come about?
2. What cultural movements were surrounding this time period?
3. How long did it take for significant people to address the issue?

WHERE
1. What areas are mainly affected by hydrofracking?
2. Is this an international issue? If so, where and is it controversial in those areas as well as in the US?
3. Where has the most activity (protests, public addresses, etc.) taken place?

HOW
1. How is the general public responding to the issue?
2. How are people around the world responding to the issue? Is it well known?
3. How has the media played a role in the controversy?

Reflection on Project 2

In this post, I will be answering questions that reflect on my final draft for project 2.

Pasternak, Leonid. "Throes of Creation". via Wikipedia. Public Domain License.

1. Specifically, I changed my entire introduction and conclusion in order to better address my audience and avoid summarizing my rhetorical analysis. I also deleted unnecessary sentences and condensed many of them down because my essay was really wordy in my first draft. Throughout the essay, I also had to add in sentences here and there to address my audience again.

2. I didn't have to reconsider my thesis, because it was pretty solid. However, in the middle of huge paragraphs I tended to stray away from the main point causing it to be a little confusing to read and not very organized. To fix this, I just kept reading my essay out loud and went from there revising.

3. Remembering the real purpose of my essay and who my audience is led me to these changes.

4. These changes I made would hopefully make me more credible of an author because I was addressing my own audience more, connecting with them.

5. The changes better addressed the audience because I was speaking/writing directly to them. I used words like 'you' and 'we' to make it perfectly obvious what I was doing.

6. My sentence structure didn't really vary. It was long sentence after long sentence which can be difficult to read. I broke up those sentences to fix this issue.

7. Like I said, bad sentence structure makes the reader not want to read anymore. So, by fixing that issue, I would be making it easier for them to read and understand what my point is in the essay. Also, the changes would allow them to get through reading the essay faster giving them more time to think about it and also easier for them to look back on to reference when they eventually rhetorically analyze a piece of writing.

8. No, I didn't have to reconsider conventions of a formal essay, I know them well enough by now.

9. The reflection helps me see what I still need to work on as a writer. No one is perfect so by recognizing and being aware of these imperfections, I'm already one step closer to correcting them.


Reflection:
I read Hunter's reflection as well as Jon's and I related a lot to what both of them were saying. Hunter worked a lot on his intro and conclusion which I can definitely relate to. Jon worked really hard to address his audience in a more obvious, direct fashion which is something I struggled to do at first as well. The class discussions were what brought on these specific revisions in my opinion. If we didn't talk about it all together, I probably wouldn't have revised my essay in the way that I did.

Project 2 Final Draft

Here is a link to my final draft for project 2, hope you like it as much as I love this picture of adorable little puppies.

"Havanese puppies". 3/30/11 via Wikipedia. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Punctuation, Part 2

In this blog post, I will be discussing 3 more things on punctuation I read about in Rules For Writers.

"Quotes". 4/1/07 via Wikipedia. Public Domain License.

1. End punctuation: Sometimes it gets confusing when you have to use periods as abbreviations for some words like 'etc.' so I decided to read about it. I learned that it doesn't really matter if you have to use that in the middle of a sentence because it's still grammatically correct. 
2. The apostrophe: I learned when reading this that it isn't necessary to use apostrophes when you're talking about a span of years or something, like 'the 1800s'. I always used to put an apostrophe between the 0 and the s. I also learned the proper way to use an apostrophe with plural nouns. An example of this from my draft is: "It makes him not only come across as respectful of others’ opinions and therefore very professional..."
3. The comma: I'm always worried that I use commas very unnecessarily so I decided to read this section. I learned that you can't use commas between a verb and a noun, so I'll have to watch out for that so I don't make that mistake. An example of using commas from my draft is: "Just to the right of the article at the top of the website it came from, there is a short bio along with links to his twitter, facebook, and youtube pages to name a few."

Paragraph Analysis 2

In this blog post, I will provide a link to the paragraph analysis of my rough draft and discuss it briefly.

Altmann, Gerd. "Problem Analysis Solution". 10/15 via Pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

By doing this activity, I learned that my organization is overall a pretty big strength. I feel like everything flows together although I could do better on my transitions. The main points were usually identified but perhaps not in the best or most interesting way. There's always room for improvement with that but overall I think my essay is in pretty good shape.

Revised Conclusion

In this blog post, I will be redoing my conclusion from my first draft for project 2.

I believe this conclusion is better because it answers the "so what" question in a much better way than the old version. Both are good, but I personally think the new one has more sense to it.


Old Version:
From presenting other’s opinions, establishing an adequate amount of credibility, and taking into account what the central message he wanted to leave his specific audience with, Revkin achieved what he set out to do. He felt as though leaving his readers with food for thought was a better way to discuss a controversy rather than telling them what he believed and why. The big picture was in his mind. It seems as though Revkin’s evident rhetorical strategies were just waiting to be analyzed in a way which we can understand what his message was. Every writer is writing for a reason and I believe it’s our duty as well-educated citizens to find out what that reason is.

New Version:
All of the rhetorical strategies that Revkin used on his audience were for a main purpose. He wanted his audience to think and presented ideas in the ways he did so they could understand why this matters. Emotional appeals in the form of personal stories are essential for making the personal connection to readers which is part of why it matters. Ethical appeals like how Revkin established his credibility in the first few sentences in his article built a trust between him and his audience which is also essential for them to believe anything he wrote. The big picture was in his mind. He had a message for his audience and sometimes you can't just flat out say what that message is because it loses its effect. That's why rhetorical analysis is so important. It's our duty to find out what writers like Andrew Revkin really want to say to us.

Altmann, Gerd. "End Guy Cinema Strip". 8/27/07 via Pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

Revised Introduction

In this blog post, I will be redoing my introduction from my first draft in hopes of improvement after my peers edited it.

I believe my new introduction is better than my old one because I got rid of the first couple of sentences that don't grab my readers' attentions or define what my topic is. I think the statistic I have as my hook now is much more effective. I didn't have to change anything else really because the rest was my thesis statement.

Altmann, Gerd. "Road Start Beginning". 1/17/06 via Pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

Old Version:

The world is full of controversy and it’s basically our job as members of American society to keep ourselves in the loop. With controversy in the scientific world, it is taken to another level. It’s not for everyone and those who are interested ought to not only appreciate the arguments of both sides regardless of their personal opinion, but also recognize how to analyze those arguments. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking, a process in which water is pumped into the ground to break apart rocks and release natural gas, has been sparking debate for some time. Andrew C. Revkin, the author of New York Times article "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking", cleverly used rhetoric to inform and spark the thoughts of his readers on this controversial topic. By presenting different points of view other than his own which included personal stories that support the counterargument, Revkin was effective in building up his credibility removing his own bias-not completely, but when presenting counterarguments-from his article. Based on the context and audience of the controversy, he succeeded in provoking thought and encouraging them to develop their own opinions about hydraulic fracking.

New Version:

How many of us were aware that over the past 10 years, there has been a 5,100% increase in chemical contamination in the soil and water supply in the US? Now...how many of us were aware that the bulk of this increase in contamination came from a process in which water is pumped into the ground to break apart rocks and release natural gas, or hydraulic fracturing? The controversy regarding this process has been going on for decades becuase of those shocking statistics. Andrew C. Revkin, the author of New York Times article "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking", cleverly used rhetoric to inform and spark the thoughts of his readers on this controversial topic. By presenting different points of view other than his own which included personal stories that support the counterargument, Revkin was effective in building up his credibility removing his own bias-not completely, but when presenting counterarguments-from his article. Based on the context and audience of the controversy, he succeeded in provoking thought and encouraging them to develop their own opinions about hydraulic fracking.

Reflection of Project 2 Draft

In this post I will be reflecting on the first draft I wrote for project 2.

I peer edited Allison's and Aaron's drafts.

Gosselin, Bret. "Peer Edit Picture". 7/13/11 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

• I definitely have an identifiable thesis, and I don't think I'll be needing to change it at all because it addresses everything that is discussed in my essay.
• I organized my essay by the rhetorical strategies I was analyzing. It made transitions really easy and it made the most sense in my head to do it that way. Each paragraph has a main idea and evidence.
• No, honestly I didn't identify the five elements of the rhetorical situation but I didn't think that was necessary because I'm not discussing all elements in my essay.
• I think I did a pretty good job explaining the how and why aspects of the rhetorical strategies the author of my article used. And yes I did also explain the effects that it would have on the specific audience he wrote for.
• I'd like to think I'm using evidence but I definitely think I could add more in my paragraphs. I have some points where the evidence is solid but other points it's not really there so I should be fixing that.
• I honestly have no idea if I'm leaving my readers wanting more...I tried to make my conclusion in a way where they'd think about what they just read in a more meaningful way. However, I don't think they are wanting more. The "so what" question was addressed fully in the conclusion but I will look over it again to make sure I didn't leave any key points out.

Punctuation, Part 1

In this blog post, I will be discussing 3 topics I read about in Rules For Writers.

"Pen Writing Notes". 1/31/15 via Pexels. Creative Commons License.

The Semicolon
I'm pretty conscious of my grammar and I hate always using commas, so I felt like I should read the section on semicolons. I try to use semicolons pretty often, so I have some understanding of when they're appropriate to use. What I found out that I didn't already know about semicolons is that they can be used to split up separate lists of things that are already separated by commas (separating already separated things). This should be really useful to me when writing.

The Colon
Like I said, I hate always having to use commas, so I thought I might as well read the section on colons too. What I found out about colons is that they are more formal than dashes and that you can't use a colon between a preposition and the subject. I've made that mistake before so I'm happy I read this section.

Quotations
I feel like quotes are kind of thrown around some words if you don't know what to do with it, but you know that something does have to be done. I'm guilty of this too so I wanted to brush up on when using quotations is allowed. I had no idea that you couldn't use quotes in a humorous way...I've definitely done that on more than a few occasions. Also, I didn't know you couldn't use quotes around slang, because I've always done that. This was probably the most useful thing I read about.


Reflection
After peer editing Allison's and Aaron's rough drafts, I noticed a few things like quotations especially and common errors with them. Now that I know how quotations should be placed I was able to help them both with that. Neither really used semicolons or colons that I noticed, so not much can be said about that.

From Aaron's draft:
Well… you don’t need to know that much about computers to recognize the names “4chan” and “Anonymous.”
Quotation marks can't be used to refer to names of things like that.

From Allison's draft:

Example Body Paragraph:

While Lutz successfully uses data and personal stories to her advantage, she fails when it comes to creating an overall professional piece.
No quotations were added although a new paragraph/indentation began.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

In this blog post, I will be presenting a draft of my rhetorical analysis essay and addressing my peers in what  I feel they need to know when it comes to peer editing.

"Confused". 1/24/09 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Here is my (very) rough draft of my rhetorical analysis of "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking". I'm totally not sure if what I'm doing is the right thing but I feel like I put a lot of work into it. Be as harsh as you'd like when editing because I need all of the help I could get. I didn't include in-text citations yet because I'm not exactly sure where to put them as I'm mainly citing the article I'm analyzing. Feedback on the body and conclusion would be much appreciated as well as the overall organization of the essay. Thanks!

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In this blog post, I will be using a quote from the text I am analyzing and paraphrasing it as well as summarizing it to practice those skills. 


Original Source
"The thing that raises my hackles is the industry’s blunt attempts to shirk accountability for any of this — (“Truthland” [link] being the latest example). Accordingly, I favor aggressive reporting on industry’s persistent and successful insistence on exemptions from disclosure requirements – notably the Safe Drinking Water Act and state and federal hazardous waste laws. These exceptions serve as cover for the notion that drilling and fracking are blameless for methane migration or any other problems."

"Thinking". 8/30/08 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

My Paraphrase of Original Source
Revkin agrees strongly with Tom Wilber, the author of "Under the Surface" (on the gas rush in New York and Pennsylvania), who is in favor of the benefits fracking has. However, he strongly disagrees with the regulation-or lack of-on what these companies can and cannot do. Responsibility for damages must be taken, and that isn't happening right now.


My Summary of Original Source
One point of view presented was the strong objection to how companies responsible for using hydraulic fracking are not being held responsible for the damages their actions have caused.

Project 2 Outline

In this blog post, I will not only be making an outline for my essay, but also writing about the reading from Writing Public Lives.

Enokson. "Writing Assignment-Drafting and Revising". 2/24/10 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

These few pages helped me out a lot to start thinking more about what I want to do with my essay and how I want to do it. The introduction section included this piece of advice: "Focus the bulk of your writing on text itself rather than on general ideas about the issue that it addresses." In other words, they are telling me to focus on specifics right off the bat in the intro to make it more clear as to what my argument is exactly. When they talked about the body paragraphs, I found what they said about having conclusion sentences to be very important as I always remember when authors have that, but I usually don't remember to put them in. The conclusive sentences should give a brief overview of the purpose of that paragraph(s). I liked how the conclusion section finally strayed away from the 'summarize your essay' strategy. I never thought that was very effective, so instead the conclusion should be interesting enough to leave the readers thinking about your analysis and the controversy it centered around.

The text's rhetorical situation might include...

1. Context article was written under: New York state government contemplating whether or not to ban use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil; responses to author's previous encounters with controversy
2. Intended audience: educated audience interested in topic/similar topics with some current background information on controversy
3. Purpose of article: encourage readers to think about controversy and how to resolve it
4. Cultural setting: happening in America--average American families forced involvement (part of why it is a controversial topic)
5. Values/ideals: more modern values of environmental health, safety of citizens, family values
6. Author's background: highly educated, experienced, and well known New York Times author

The text's rhetorical strategies might include...

1. ethos
2. pathos
3. logos

Project 2 Outline

Introduction: I plan on beginning my essay by introducing the author and article I'm analyzing. His point of view on the controversy will be left out until the body because that wasn't a central point of why he wrote the piece. The other two points of view will be presented in this paragraph. I think the author effectively used ethos and pathos to address the cultural setting and get his central message across.

Thesis: I am using the second thesis I wrote in the previous blog post.

Develop An Analytical Claim: My claim is that the author used his credibility as a well respected New York Times writer to appeal to his logical audience's character and emotion by presenting counterarguments more than his own argument. This encouraged his readers to think about how others feel, because that's exactly what he was doing when he wrote the article.

Support The Analytical Claim: I plan on using a lot of evidence from the text itself to support my claim. There are several quotes and little things the author did which I know I can mention to offer support. The rhetorical strategies like hyperlinking other pieces of his (for credibility) and the inclusion of personal stories in favor of the argument different from his own (for emotional appeal) are just a few examples.

Body: I plan on digging a lot into the 2 different arguments presented for the first two body portions. The final body portion will be on the author's personal opinion and how he didn't really mention it, but subtly brought it up.

Conclusion: I will conclude my essay by discussing how this strategy was effective, but then ending it off with rhetorical questions asking my own audience if they would have done the same thing as the author of the text I'm analyzing. I want to involve and speak directly to my readers in the conclusion, but I'm not sure exactly how I will be doing that yet.

Reflection
After reading Stef's and Grace's blog posts, I honestly got kind of nervous about mine. It's not because it looks any different, I actually had a lot of similarities with them. The main thing for me is that I don't feel like I'm super confident with what I want to say and they seem like they are. I guess it's all a part of the writing process though...