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...

Draft Thesis Statements

In this post, I will be sharing a few ideas I have for thesis statements for Project 2.

Girin, Bruno. "Offshore oil fields in Azerbaijan". 6/17/05 via wikipedia. Creative Commons License.

1. While addressing and bringing in different points of view on the controversy of hydraulic fracking focused in New York and rural Pennsylvania, the author of "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking", Andrew C. Revkin, takes the stance in favor of continuing this process. To inform and spark the thoughts of his readers, Revkin quoted two experts whose opinions differed from his own.

2. 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.


I think that my second thesis statement, although it may be a little wordy, is the better one because it includes more background information on the article. It also brings up actual rhetorical strategies Revkin used in the article, which is what Project 2 focuses on in the analysis of the text. The first thesis statement is a little too specific on the wrong things and doesn't effectively clue in to what my essay will be about.


Reflection
I noticed after reading Grace's blog post that our 'better' thesis statements were quite similar. I was reassured that I had the right idea behind what should be included in our thesis statement. After reading Stef's blog post, I felt that maybe my thesis statements were a bit lengthy. I'm not sure what direction I want to go with my essay and what tone I want to have with it now. But that's all part of the writing process and I'm happy they got me thinking more about the direction I am going to go.

Analyzing My Audience

In this blog post, I will be answering 6 questions from Student's Guide to First Year Writing regarding my audience for project 2.

Everett, Valerie. "Questions?". 11/04/08 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. My audience is anyone who is interested in controversies in the world of engineering, more specifically mechanical and petroleum engineering. These people probably don't usually deconstruct the pieces about engineering they read; they probably just read it to get information and are done with it. 
2. It's hard to say what position they will take, because more than one argument was presented in the original text. I will also be presenting both sides of the controversy, so what side they take is a personal opinion.
3. I think they will definitely want to know why a new surge in the controversy has come up and what relevant people have to say about it.
4. I'm not sure how they will react to my argument. I believe that they will respect it regardless if they agree or not, but since both sides will be presented it's kind of hard to disagree with both of them.
5. I can relate to my audience by telling how hydraulic fracking affects common people similarly to how the author of the article did. Besides specific details like that, my audience will already have some sort of background knowledge about this controversy or else they wouldn't be reading it in the first place.
6. I can use images, stories, and solid facts to relate to my audience. It will give them a visual along with a goo understanding of what exactly is happening with hydraulic fracking right now.

Reflection

After reading Stef's and Lia's posts, I realized all 3 of us had a lot of similar answers to these questions. We all want to be able to relate to our audience in a unique way without being too bossy when presenting our own opinion on the controversy we are researching. I think we will do very well on this next project as we already have a solid understanding and are planning a path we want to send the right message to our readers.

Cluster of "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking"

In this post, I will be discussing the cluster map I made for my text.

Triebert, Christiaan. "Forced Perspectives". 10/09/08 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

I have made a cluster map of what I have analyzed so far of the article "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking". Cultural values and ideologies, the rhetorical strategies used by the author, and the rhetorical situation surrounding this topic were the three main components of the cluster map. You can visit the page here.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking"

In this blog post, I will be answering questions from Student's Guide To First Year Writing about the text I chose to analyze.

Kinner, Colin. "Question Mark Sign". 1/18/08 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Appeals To Credibility/Character
The author of my text used references to credible sources, his public image/info about his expertise, and the acknowledgement of counterarguments to increase his credibility and build the character of the article. If he didn't acknowledge the counterarguments, he would have seemed very biased and therefore not as credible. Since the author is a well known, respected New York Times author, it would be stupid of him not to have mentioned that somewhere and provided working hyperlinks to other pieces of his related to this topic. It provided background information, referenced credible sources, and played up his image at the same time.

I think the counterargument increased the effectiveness of the article the most. It lets the readers see both sides and then allows them to decide what they want to think about the controversy. In fact, the author ended his article without a conclusive statement/paragraph after the counterargument was presented. So, it shows that he wasn't being biased and wasn't obviously persuading his readers to have the same opinion as him. His opinion wasn't even discussed after the 2nd paragraph.

Appeals To Emotion
Personal stories and the repetition of key words were what the author used to appeal to his readers' emotions. Stories give faces and names to the controversy, making it more personable. The intention of the author was for his readers to sympathize with families that lost some of its members due to the carelessness of some companies using hydraulic fracking, and it was very effective for me at least. Death definitely catches readers' attention, especially death of innocent, average citizens that had nothing to do with fracking.

Keys words that were repeated like safety, environment, and average citizen also were an attempt to catch the readers' attention. All three of these words are either something the reader can relate to being or common values in America today. Personal stories probably had more of an effect on the readers' emotions, but key words did make a contribution too.

Appeals To Logic
Interviews or expert opinions, historical records, and clear transitions between sections of text were all things I recognized in the text. With these tactics, the author is trying to have the readers make sense of the controversy in the easiest way possible. Transitions can make the reader realize what they're reading without having to think about it. Interviews and expert opinions provide more credible insight on the controversy. Historical records provide evidence to back up their points.

These strategies proved to be effective for me when I read through the article. Clear transitions made it a whole lot easier to read and understand while the historical records and expert opinions gave solid evidence to the arguments being made. I think the intended audience would agree with me regarding the effectiveness of these methods.


Reflection
After reading Carrie Belle's and Austin's  posts, I felt as though authors use a lot of the same rhetorical methods to get to their readers. They both did really well analyzing the effectiveness, but I probably should've included more examples from the text in my analysis. Reading theirs, I wish they would've done that too to provide more context to what they're analyzing.

Analyzing Message in "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking"

In this blog post, I will be answering questions about the message and purpose of the text I am analyzing.

"Phone Message Delivery". Via Central Communications. Public Domain License.

• "Persuade the Audience of Something" was a bullet that I thought applied to the text I'm analyzing. Different points of view were given along with hyperlinks to more information about them, so the author definitely wanted the reader to educate themselves and take a side.
• "Advocate for Change" was also one that applies to the text because within the arguments given, solutions were offered to help solve the problem therefore advocating for a change.

• "Inform the Reader About a Topic That is Often Misunderstood" was one that I didn't think applied to my text because there wasn't much informing going on period. The author assumed his readers knew about the controversy beforehand and if they didn't, hyperlinks were given for them to visit.
• "Analyze, Synthesize, and Interpret" was also a bullet point I didn't think applied because there isn't a whole lot of data being analyzed or interpreted at all. A few opinions on the fracking controversy were given and that was the main purpose of the article.

I think what might be blocking the message is the multiple points of views discussed. It may confuse the reader a bit and make them think and form an opinion of their own. So, the specific message the author himself is trying to get across may not be clear to some people as they could be distracted by the different sides discussed.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

In this blog post, I will be answering the questions from Writing Public Lives titled "Analyzing the Text's Relationship to Our Own Cultural Assumptions".

"The Thinker". 01/02/07 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. Since the text was written from an American society and culture, I share a lot of the beliefs and values some are supporting in their arguments. Family values, civil rights, government regulation, environmental safety, etc. are all huge parts of this country and it what makes us unique. They have endured for over 200 years so I don't see how they'd be stopping any time soon.

2. I personally don't agree with the author as he doesn't seem as concerned with the environment as he should be. This process could have a serious long term affect on the Earth and that should be important to everyone, not just the people who live in these areas it's happening in.

3. This was written in America and is happening right now all over the country. It started in the 1980s, so the only thing that seems to have developed is the value of our environment which more and more people are being educated on since then.


Reflection
After reading Bailey's and Olivia's posts, I realized a few things. One of them being truth is a very important thing when it comes to controversy, and it's important for people to be aware of the truth. Often times all the arguing strays away from what's most important and that is the truth. The truth about the effects of whatever is causing the controversy.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

In this blog post, I will be analyzing the setting in which my text was created in by answering "Questions We Might Ask When Analyzing the Text's Relationship to its Social and Cultural Setting".

"Twenty Questions". 8/27/11 via Wikipedia. Public Domain License,

1. Family values were brought up a few times in the article when stories were told about 4 people dying from explosions in their own home due to a natural gas build up underneath their house. There is a widespread belief that your home is where you're supposed to be safe but that isn't the case for several families because of this issue. That is a key point in the anti-fracking argument.

Company regulation by the government is a norm in America ever since the Great Depression. This was brought up in the article because these natural gas companies using hydraulic fracking are not being regulated at all by state or federal governments.


2. The text does address these values as I said in the form of stories about family members who have died suddenly from explosions in their home. The regulation of companies was also heavily discussed in all points of view mentioned in the article as that was one of the solutions they thought of.


3. The text seems supportive of these values and norms as the two men's arguments presented specifically brought them up. The reason fracking is a controversy is because people are remembering and asking questions about whether or not this is right to do. I don't think they are trying to modify these aspects of American culture, but rather to just not forget about them.

Cultural Analysis of "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking"

In this blog post, I will be focusing and analyzing "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking" in a cultural sense.

"Hydraulic Fracturing". 1/14/07 via Wikipedia. Public Domain License.

Cultural Key Words: fracking; health/safety; contamination; environment
These key words are essential to what the controversy is all about. Is fracking the cause for water contamination? Is fracking putting the health and safety of average citizens living in places such as New York or Pennsylvania at risk? How are people's daily lives affected? How is the environment affected? These questions are what people's concerns are when it comes to hydraulic fracking.

Readers could be more likely to care about this issue when these values are brought up because it extends beyond simple gas company projects. It makes the issue a lot more real when average people are affected; they didn't ask for companies to begin these projects. They just chose to live in a place where fracking is possible.

Basic Thesis: The author of this article, Andrew C. Revkin, believes himself that fracking should not be stopped in cities such as New York because the overall benefits of having affordable gas outweigh the risks associated with the process. He offers two points of view from different people on the fracking controversy.
One of them believes there should be government regulations on fracking because it has the risk of letting natural gas flow underground into water supplies and contaminate them, therefore the government can't just ignore what's going on.
The other shared stories of fatalities in rural Pennsylvania to get the point across that fracking is extremely dangerous if not done properly and safely, so the huge oil/natural gas companies behind all of this need to stop and think about the effect this process has on the environment.