 |
| 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.
I agree that your second thesis statement, although wordy, is the stronger thesis of the two! It'll definitely be really strong when refined a little bit. I think it may be beneficial to provide details on to who the audience of your author's article is, because that provides important context to your piece. I think that you followed what was expected of us really well. I like it (:
ReplyDeleteWhile your first thesis is workable, I think your second thesis is kind of a more specific version of the first one, which is good. The second is much more developed and like you said, included specific rhetorical strategies. The only thing that I saw you might want to add, is consider putting the part about how the author is for fracking. That part was in your first thesis, but not your second, and is good because it shows the purpose of the article. Otherwise, nice work!
ReplyDeleteI really liked the second thesis and I agree with what Allison said. Audience is a big part of the rhetoric. I also believe though, that the first part is too much like a summary, we don't necessarily need to know the article is from the NYT. Good drafts though!
ReplyDeleteI think your second thesis is better way better! The second one seems to be a more specific version of your first one. Even though it is long, I think it does a good job of introducing your message. I think your second one just needs to be more concise.
ReplyDelete