Considering Types

In this post, I will explain which type of argument I will be considering for my public argument project. I am unsure whether at this point in this post which one or ones I would like to use but I assure my readers that it will be interesting and informative. To add, I will also state why some will not work for my argument.

The types of argument come from the "Five Basic Types of Public Argument" box on Writing Public Lives page 414. The five types are listed as follows:

• Position 
• Casual
• Evaluative
• Proposal
• Refutation

Esseh. "Different Directional AP axes in three body segments of a horse."
04/14/2007 via Wikimedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Position Argument:  This type of argument is very effective for my kind of argument. If I were to include both sides of the debate in my argument, I could credible present the issue to my audience. Through all of this, I can still give my views and opinions supporting geoengineering without compromising my reliability or credibility. 

Evaluative Argument:  Using this type of argument would be an efficient way to represent the field of geoengineering as a positive process to my audience. This argument would have to be supported by a large amount of supporting data and statistics if this argument were to be effective. As an author, if I were able to persuade a reader then that would satisfy the main goal of the argument.

Refutation Argument:  This argument would be a great way to break down the reputation of an opposing idea or cause. The major consequence would be a large amount of criticism from readers, especially if they had predispositions on the side of the opposition. If successful in persuading my readers, I could definitely label my argument as a job well done.

In Reflection, reading through Savannah's posts and Kelly's posts, I have learned that they both have similar but different approaches to myself. All of us are shooting to inform readers about the issues surrounding topics. I will most likely use the method of evaluating the methods of geoengineering as good, while Savannah seems will be using a method of giving both sides with additions of her opinions. Kelly aims to mainly inform as she states that many do not know about the healing benefits of ice bathing. Overall,  I am confident our arguments will persuade with ease.

Savannah's posts: Rhetorical Action Plan / Considering Types

Kelly's posts: Rhetorical Action Plan / Considering Types

My Rhetorical Action Plan

Now that I have analyzed both the context and purpose in my two previous posts, I can now start to decide on a rhetorical action plan. The development of one takes some time and this post will help break it down into a more manageable and clear analysis before delving deeper into the actual public argument later on.

geralt. "Town Sign Plan Success Strategy Business." 04/21/2005 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

Developing a Rhetorical Action Plan


Audience: Who are you trying to persuade? Describe the following aspects of you audience:

• Knowledge: My audience has a general idea of what the topic is. They get their information from media outlets covering the debates and experimental studies done on the effects of the methods used. Many most likely have predispositions on the subject. These views are mainly of positive or negative opinions of geoengineering itself.

• Values: My audience's values are held tight and they intend to keep it that way. Many want to know what geoengineering actually is, whether it be beneficial or harmful. The audience most likely believes that they have a right to know what the methods are doing to the plant's atmosphere, earth or water. 

• Standards of Argument: The type of research that would persuade my audience is the proof and hard evidence that a method does in fact benefit or harm the environment and other living things. If these were presented in large quantities to the public, then the debate would be nearly over. People always want the answers and the truths about what is happening.

• Visual Elements: My audience would respond to visuals such as charts, graphs, and other statistical information regarding the field of geoengineering. They want to physically see the numbers to make a presumption on the effects on the planet.

• Purpose: My audience wants another perspective other than the ones that I have researched into before. My argument will go down a different path to show readers additional methods used in geoengineering and how they are beneficial to mankind and the environment. 

Genre: What form of writing will you use? Answer the following:

1. What is the function of the genre?  I will be writing an argumentative piece on why geoengineering is truly beneficial to the planet and its inhabitants. I will also state reasons why the methods employed are not harmful or risky. This will all be backed up with expert statements as well as statistical evidence.

2. What is the setting of your genre? The setting for my article will be similar to those posted in media outlets such as The Washington Post or The New York Times. I could also see my piece being published in scientific journals.

3. How might you use the rhetorical appeals -- ethos, pathos, and logos?  I will present information based on the appeals of logos and ethos. I will not use pathos as my audience would not be emotionally moved by the statistics and data I will display. The use of logos will be of most importance as a topic such a geoengineering needs solids evidence to persuade a reader to understand and follow.

4. What type of visual elements will you use in this genre? I may or may not display graphs and / or charts in my writings. If I do however, they will help aid in my argument that geoengineering methods are efficient for the planet and safe to use on a large scale.

5. What type of style will you use in this genre? I will use a formal style of writing with the means of informing my audience about the issue I will present. I want my readers to fully understand why geoengineering is beneficial to the planet and why it is not harmful in any severe way.

Responses / Actions: Explain possible actions you would like your audience to take:

• List potential "Positive Support" and "Negative Rebuttals" to the argument.

• Positive:
• My audience will find my argument agreeable
• Readers will begin to advocate for the use of geoengineering
• Readers will want to learn more about the positive effects of geoengineering
• Negative:
• My audience will strongly disagree with my argument
• Readers will begin to label me as an author as not credible
• Readers will label my argument as ineffective

• Which negative rebuttals do you think should be better addressed? The main potential rebuttal that should be addressed is if the audience should label myself as an unreliable source. To combat this, I should use solid evidence found through extensive research. Using this information should reenforce my argument. If a reader wants to call me unreliable, then he may as well be calling the data and statistics unreliable as well when they were conducted by very reliable sources.

• Trace out the potential chains of action that the argument might create. If my argument is effective, then readers will begin to advocate the use of geoengineering to solve the planet's environmental issues. If readers strongly dislike my argument, then another controversy might ensue from my statements.

Analyzing Purpose

This post will further breakdown the bigger picture of the argument. Unlike the previous post, however, I will be thinking through the purpose of my public argument. In the rest of this post, you will see an elaborate Coggle construction that I have made to follow the directions from Writing Public Lives page 326.

Paul Downey. "Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose. The 3 key factors of intrinsic motivation according to Dan Pink."
11/30/2013 via Wikimedia.org. Public Domain Dedication.

Key Areas Highlighted Are:

1. Determine the goal of the public argument.

The main goal of my public argument will be addressing the issue of geoengineering as a whole. While the field of geoengineering is very large, I will be using the methods employed to support the uses conducted. Previous articles that I have researched into and wrote about have mainly been about the processes of fracking and solar radiation management. In my argument, I want to bring up additional methods that would provide relief to opposers and would give them a sense of hope for a environmental and technological future.

2. What do you want readers to do, feel, and/or believe?

I want my readers to realize that the processes of geoengineering are not bad. Even though many say that certain methods are bad for the environment, scientific proof thus far has not banned their uses. The method employed that has generated the most debate is fracking. I want my readers to view these methods as a gateway to a better future. I want supporters of the methods to advocate for them. I want opposers to realize that their views are biased based off of others' opinions.

3. Highlight "Plausible Actions / Reactions." Similarly, highlight "Not Plausible."

Plausible: 

• A reader may consider the benefits of geoengineering and become fond of them.
• A reader may want to search for more research done in the field.
• A reader may find my argument absurd and call me unreliable.
• A reader may completely ignore my argument.

Not Plausible:

• A reader may become deranged and commit an action that is unspeakable.
• A reader may entirely accept or deny the facts and opinions I have presented.
• A reader, if mentally stable, may automatically lean one way or the other after reading.

4. Build a chain of likely consequences for the argument.

My argument could spark another worldwide debate. If I were to present the public of additional ideas and projects that scientists and their companies want to conduct, then a newly escalated issue would incur. My statements and opinions may become labeled as unreliable and incredible by reputable persons who oppose the use of geoengineering. It may even be possible that my argument could be rejected by well respected supporters as well.

5. Think of possible audiences to address.

My audience would be mainly proportional of supporters of geoengineering and its methods. These people would make up a very large majority while people who are neutral and the subject may be another significant portion. Lastly, I would not include many opposers to engineering in my argument, but I would want to aim the focus towards them specifically. This in turn would call out the flaws in their arguments and would persuade them to think again on the effects of geoengineering. If I get lucky, they will consider the methods as plausible subjects being tested upon.

Analyzing Context

In this post, I will be looking at the bigger picture and analyzing the context of my argument. This post will serve as a baseline as to pointing out the major points and key perspectives. I will be answering questions coming from Writing Public Lives page 340; these questions will help get the view of where the argument as a whole stands currently.

F Delventhal. "The Bigger Picture." 12/30/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

The main thought-process on the debate over geoengineering is either of negative or positive opinion. Hard facts have been noted through studies as well as experiments, but these have been conducted with results supporting the act of geoengineering or tainting it. People have been debating the topic over the past several decades and not much has come of it besides newly learned methods and proof that some work and some don't, thus harming the environment if so.

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?

A couple of topics under fire in the field of geoengineering has been the methods of fracking and solar radiation management. Critics and supporters alike have been debating back and forth on both topics stating the positive and negative effects of each with the counter-argumentation just as strong from either side.

3. What are the possible points of agreement, or common ground between these perspectives?

Although there are nearly no common grounds that these two perspectives there are some specific area where the two collaborate on the same points. They both address the effects on the environment, they both also identify that the these effects do make impacts on other subjects related to the environment. They major issue however is that although they both state similar topics, the two have different and opposite results.

4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

The differences are obvious. One side has a view that competes with another side's view. Both cannot come to a consensus and this is why the issue has escalated into a large controversy. The issue that come into play are whether one side is dominant over the other in the views they present .

5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

Either side is fighting to gain followers and support for their causes. Supporters of geoengineering would want their audiences to say that the methods are beneficial and not harmful to the environment. On the other hand, if an opposer to geoengineering were part of an audience, they would act in a way that would be in total offense towards supports.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting you own arguments about the issue? How so?

Since I believe that geoengineering is an efficient and beneficially way to solve the planet's environmental issues, I would argue for its advocacy. Perspectives that point towards geoengineering as a solution would be most useful in my argument, while views that discourage the methods would not. However, if a comment made by an opposer seemed quite absurd, I could use that statement as a display of lacking credibility from the opposing source.

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? How so?

The greatest threat to my argument are solid and hard evidence that proves that methods of geoengineering are harmful to the environment. Luckily, not all methods have been linked to any risks. Although the topics such as fracking and solar radiation management have been under much controversy, they would not be going on if there was enough evidence to prove their harmfulness.


In Reflection, reading over Savannah's post and Alyssa's post, I found that different approaches can be made for any type of argument. Answers to these questions by Savannah followed along very similar lines as mine. This is not surprising as we both are covering engineering based topics. As for Alyssa's topic, I really needed to read into her answers to get the understanding of what her argument will be comprised of. Her statements seem to be a very good starting point for an argument on circumcision.

Audience and Genre

This post will explore the possibilities that my argument can be found in. It will present a couple of audiences that can serve to follow my argument and it will give examples of places I can possible publish my work where my audiences will be able to find it and read it.

Roy Blumenthal. "Research Strategy Design." 07/28/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Audiences will most likely be the following two populations: engineering students at university and current scientists and engineers following the controversy. Students in engineering majors will find the argument interesting and want to learn more as they are now on their own journeys to find innovation and ideas for their work in the future. Scientists and engineers following the controversy may want to learn the insight of others opinions on the topics as they most likely already know the background and have their own views. If a supporter reads my argument, they will find it intriguing and helpful in aiding in advocating for the methods employed in geoengineering. On the other hand, if an opposer to the same methods reads my argument, they will find it absurd that I have chosen to side on the other, and will call me invalid and non-credible and non-reliable.

Two locations I could publish my research to, catering to engineering students, could be either the more broad website, Access Engineering, a digital document library that serves as a database containing thousands of engineering-based reports, or I could post my argument to Engineering.com, a website thats sole purpose is to educate and to inform readers on the topics that they provide and on the events in the current news.

Two locations I could publish my research to, catering to scientists and engineers following the controversy, could be either The Institute of Engineering and Technology's journal website, www.theiet.org, or the American Chemical Society's website, www.acs.org. The Institute of Engineering and Technology contains thousands of engineering journals that millions of people view annually, making it a source that will get my argument read. The American Chemical Society also contains journals as well as other sources of information to help inform readers of the topics submitted to the Society. The site caters to professionals, but can also cater to engineering students as well.

Examples from Access Engineering:

1. Introduction to Sustainable Systems Engineering
2. Introduction to Geoinformatics

Examples from Engineering.com:

1. Geoengineering: What Is It? What Can It Do?
2. Geoengineering: Scientists Urge More Research Before Action

Examples from The Institute of Engineering and Technology:

1. Should engineers control the eco-system?
2. Geoengineering is scary business, scientist admits

Examples from the American Chemical Society:

1. Global Climate Change
2. Carbon Lock-In: Barriers to Deploying Climate Change Mitigation Technologies

Extended Annotated Bibliography

As the preparation to create my own public argument continues, I will construct a listing of sources that I will format into an annotated bibliography. The sources I will list will help give information about, if not answer, the questions I stated in my previous post titled, "Narrowing My Focus." Keep in mind, these sources are about the issue over geoengineering and why some are advocating while some also protesting.

niekverlaan. "Protest Group Of People Mass Crowd." 09/21/2014 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

[1] Gumbel, A., 2015, "Drought blamers: California conspiracists see government's hand in arid climate," The Guardian, "http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/26/california-drought-conspiracy-theories-geoengineering-climate," [accessed 10/22/2015].

This source gives information about how people are banding together to tell people that the government has something to do with California's drought. Andrew Gumbel of The Guardian presents several sources, namely Dane Wigington a solar power contractor, who believe that the drought is being caused by the government using methods of geoengineering. This article can serve as the strange sources for possible use in my public argument.

[2] Aulakh, R., 2015, "Is David Keith's climate solution genius or madness?", The Star, "http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/09/27/is-david-keiths-climate-solution-genius-or-madness.html," [accessed 10/22/2015].

Raveena Aulakh of The Star presents an article focused on the ideas of climate scientist, David Keith. Of course telling from the article, this source would be a great additive to use in my public argument over geoengineering. This article presents the good and the bad, the skepticism and the support. Examples are also given of other geoengineering ideas different than those of Keith.

[3] Follett, A., 2015, "Feds: Fracking Still Doesn't Cause Significant Earthquakes," The Daily Caller: News Foundation, "http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/usgs-fracking-still-doesnt-cause-significant-earthquakes/," [accessed 10/22/2015].

This article is a great source to compare to the article on the conspiracies beginning with people stating that the government is causing the drought in California. Fracking is a method of geoengineering and is highly controversial in that many say it does cause a high risk of earthquakes. This source may give good information that I use in my public argument to state that fracking indeed does not cause earthquakes or any other major, maybe even minor, problems to the earth's crust.

[4] Wines, M., 2015, "Oklahoma Recognizes Role of Drilling in Earthquakes," The New York Times, "http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/oklahoma-acknowledges-wastewater-from-oil-and-gas-wells-as-major-cause-of-quakes.html?_r=0," [accessed 10/23/2015].


This article will pair nicely to the article that claims that fracking does not cause significant earthquakes. The article presents data in that earthquakes in Oklahoma are being linked to fracking based on the thoughts of people there. There is no hard evidence to suggest a correlation but no one can rule out the possibility. This article would work great in a comparison piece with the article that claims that fracking is not harmful and the article that claims that the government has something to do with the drought in California.


[5] Goldenberg, S., 2015, "Fight climate change for global stability, say US defense and diplomacy elite," The Guardian, "http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/22/fight-climate-change-for-global-stability-says-us-defence-and-diplomacy-leaders," [accessed 10/23/2015].

Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian is the site's US environment correspondent and in this article, she gives information about how top US governmental officials are calling for a fight on climate change, which may or may not be in reference to geoengineering. This article can serve as a minor source in my public argument, but there is not much information to draw a big conclusion from.


[6] Toomey, D., 2015, "One Scientist's Hopeful View On How To Repair The Planet," The Huffington Post, "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/one-scientists-hopeful-view-on-how-to-repair-the-planet_5623bcd5e4b08589ef47bf22," [accessed 10/23/2015].

This article by Diane Toomey on the hopefulness of planetary repair can be a great source to use in my public argument. Mr. Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Center and author of the book, Big World, Small Planet, states that our planet can be repaired and what humans can do to help. He is interviewed by the Yale Environment 360 and the interview is the basis for the organization in the article. Charts are included in the article and can be very useful for use in my argument.

Narrowing My Focus

This post is going to be a run-on from the previous post I published to my blog. In the previous post titled, "Questions About Controversy," I presented multiple questions in the categories of Who, What, When, Where, How. In this post, I will pick several of those questions and state why answering them will help me begin crafting my own public argument.

Michael Sauers. "Questions Answered..." 09/24/2006 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. Are there groups or organizations strongly opposing the methods used in geoengineering?

This question's answer may yield additional information on specific sources of opposition to the methods of geoengineering. As David Keith is a supporter, other groups may be opposers and finding out who or what they stand for and what do they oppose exactly can help better understand the debate from both sides.

2. What other kinds of geoengineering are also in hot water? 

This question can help open the debate in geoengineering to other methods being employed rather than just solar geoengineering a.k.a. "solar radiation management." Opening up the debate and the understanding of geoengineering as a whole can help give additional sources when constructing a public argument.

3. How does geoengineering benefit or hinder the planet as it continues to occur? 

Again, opening up the debate to all possibilities is the best way to fully give an argument and to cover all the aspects of a controversy. If a person cannot argue from both sides and give sufficient evidence for the side he or she supports, then the debate may be invalid and unpersuasive when trying to gain readers and thus followers.

Questions About Controversy

In this post, I will present a plethora of questions that I will come up with based on the topics of my previously analyzed subject of geoengineering. The questions will be categorized in the following subcategories: Who, What, When, Where, How.

Mykl Roventine. "Some Questions Can't Be Answered by Google." 03/29/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

WHO

1.  Who is David Keith and what is his background?

2.  Who else is involved in the advocacy of geoengineering besides Keith?

3.  Are there groups or organizations strongly opposing the methods used in geoengineering?


WHAT

1.  What other kinds of geoengineering are also in hot water?

2.  What does David Keith study and what is he known for, if anything?

3.  What does David Keith's company, Carbon Engineering, manufacture and research?

WHEN

1.  When did the controversy/debate/issue begin that labeled geoengineering as bad?

2.  When did David Keith become a key proponent in the field of geoengineering?

3. When is this debate projected to end, if ever?

WHERE

1.  Where did the controversy begin and what sparked it?

2.  Where does geoengineering take place?

3.  Where did geoengineering first start and what is that same area like now?

HOW

1.  How did the controversy begin and what sparked it?

2.  How did geoengineering become a hot topic in the spectra of major issues?

3.  How does geoengineering benefit or hinder the planet as it continues to occur? 

Reflection on Project II

In this post, I will reflect on the entirety of my Project II rhetorical essay. More in depth, I will reflect on my revision process of the essay throughout the past week before finalizing it. A total of nine questions will be answered by myself to let you all know how my revisions have better formed my essay for my audiences and for myself as a writer.

Blanka. "Duck Reflection Water Shine." 08/23/2013 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

I revised the entirety of my rhetorical essay from its original draft. The introduction was reconstructed to better fit the purpose of the essay. The process was same for recreating the conclusion. After redoing the introduction and conclusion, I went back through and revised the entirety of the body paragraphs to also better fit the purpose of the essay as well as to better complete the introduction and conclusion.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

As an overall revision, I changed everything to completely point to the purpose that the essay was suppose to hold. The essay was to analyze the author's effectiveness in rhetorical analysis usage. Originally I had written about the strategies in general, but after realizing my mistakes, I rewrote to fulfill the requirements.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

The realization that I had incorrectly written the essay led me to rewrite the entire piece. My audience also shifted from a general population to the group of engineering students who may not understand the topic and are looking at my analysis to better do so. My purpose remained the same on informing, but changed to give different information.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

These changes will enhance my credibility. It may not increase my credential standings but they will eventually get audiences to agree that I am a reliable source of the information I am analyzing and giving.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

The changes will give readers a sense of the effectiveness of my writings and will better give me a title as a credible and reliable author.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

I considered the structure of my sentences and their styles in that I originally did not construct it in the correct purpose. Once fully understanding what the assignment was asking of me, I changed the structures to match the needs of creating much better writing.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

My audience will better understand the purpose of my essay now that I have changed the bulk of my writing. Before revisions, I had an entirely different purpose that I wrote for than now.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

I did indeed have to reconsider the conventions as well as the purpose and idea of my writing. For this reason, I needed to recreate my essay from near-scratch to produce the paper I have now. This one is much better than the original in that it actually pertains to the main idea that the rhetorical essay assignment asked of.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

As a writer, well not a writer just a freshman honor english class taker, I have learned that revisions are key to understanding the purpose of the writing you are trying to fulfill. It was not until I sat in class listening to my professor and peers that I fully understood the assignment to create the essay I have now -- which now fulfills the requirements in my opinion and helps my readers better understand my topic.



In Reflection, I looked over Savannah's answers and Kelly's answers and they both have very similar answers between one another and between mine as well. We all seemed to have changed out introductions and conclusions to better cater to our audiences. And with regards to the audiences, I think once we realized that our audiences were incoming students in our majors, then our mindsets changed to cater to them. All in all, our changes to our originals to form the final will help readers better understand the information entirely.

Project II

Thus far, and to this current blog post, I have completed the entirety of Project I and all the steps for Project II. In this post, I will provide the link to my Project II rhetorical essay. The work, I am confident, is much better in writing and in organization that my previous project. I hope that my audience will think the same as I have put a considerable amount of work into finalizing it.

If you do not recall, I looked into the rhetorical effectiveness of the author to an article posted to The Washington Post. The article is titled, "Should we use geoengineering to cool the Earth? An interview with David Keith." The author to the post is Brad Plumer, and he interviews climate scientist David Keith with the focus of solar geoengineering and global warming for the basis of his article. 

Here is the link to my finalized Project II rhetorical essay. Enjoy!

geralt. "Success Clouds Blue Font Career Man." 09/2014 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

Punctuation, Part II

This post is a continuation of a previous post that I had posted some time last week. This is the second part to my "Punctuation, Part I" post and has been titled, "Punctuation, Part II." Again, I will explore several more topics on punctuation as laid out in the Rules for Writers textbook.

Cbaile19. "A teacher explains common punctuation marks." 11/18/2014 via Wikimedia. Public Domain Dedication.

1. The Apostrophe

The infamous apostrophe can has multiple applications that can confuse the mind to extent of no understanding. It can have uses for display of possession or for omissions of certain contraction and numbers. For use in possession, an apostrophe is attached to a noun to indicate a possession of the noun to another noun, whether it be an object or a person. An apostrophe can be used in singular or plural nouns either way. Other kinds of possessive uses include for use in joint possession and for use in compound nouns.

An apostrophe can also be used to indicate that an indefinite pronoun is possessive. Another entirety that apostrophes can be used in is for omissions in contractions and numbers. It's is shortened from It is, and can't is a compression of cannot. In numbers, an apostrophe can be used to omit the beginning of certain meaning such as in years -- if the class of 2008 is due to graduate this year, then it can also be mentioned that that class of '08 are seniors.

2. Quotation Marks

Quotations primarily are used to enclose direct quotations of another person's spoken or written words. Other uses are for titles or short works, for words used in place of other words, and, but not limited to, for use with brackets and ellipsis marks.

Quotes are often used incorrectly, especially when used with the wrong punctuation markings. If a quote being used in a work contains a punctuation already from the original source, then the end quotation mark should be place on the outside of the punctuation. If the phrase or word being sourced does not include end punctuation then the use of quotations must be place around just the word(s) being used.

3. End Punctuation

If you were confused about what exactly is "end punctuation," here is a quick breakdown and reflection of what I have learned what it is. Examples of end punctuation include the period, the question mark, the exclamation mark, and also uses of dashes, parentheses, brackets, ellipsis, and slashes.

Uses for these markings range widely. For a period, it can be used to end a sentence, usually being a statement as that is what a period indicates. If a question mark comes after a statement, it is then used to ask a subject whether the action stated has been completed. When an exclamation is presented, then a reader must emphasize the phrase or word that is contained with that certain punctuation.

The other examples stated above can range for uses. Many times each one of those uses mark a change in clauses or lead into a dependent clause. Overall, those punctuation markings are used to separate or tie in ideas from multiple clauses.

Paragraph Analysis II

This post is in reflection of my rhetorical essay on the article I have been analyzing in the past several posts. If you do not recall, here in the link to that article. Author, Brad Plumer interviews climate scientist David Keith on the matter of geoengineering the environment. He focuses in on questions that relate to the method of solar geoengineering the atmosphere to alter climate thus predicting a solution to the planet's global warming problem.

As I have stated, this post is a reflection to my writing. Here is the link to my paragraph analysis of my original and unedited writing that I had posted several blog posts prior to this one. Enjoy.

Steve Hardy. "evil bathroom reflection." 02/13/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

 
Reading over my rhetorical essay multiple times over and conducting a paragraph analysis helped point out my own errors and issues with the information I presented both grammatically and textually. A major weakness that was contained in my essay was the lack of analysis of the effectiveness of the article author's interview. Another weakness included the lack of knowledge on how to integrate and use commas, which once understood, helped tremendously. A strength to my essay was its ability to present the information with a good deal of support to the subject and have a good amount evidence to show a reader that the events told do indeed occur. Overall, I would categorize my original essay as a 5 out of 10, while my revised essay with a new introduction and a new conclusion would increase its ability to portray a sense of effectiveness in teaching my audience.

Revised Conclusion

Similar to my previous post, in this post I will present my original conclusion paragraph to my rhetorical essay along with a reconstructed version that I've created from scratch. My new conclusion has been recreated with the goal of engaging with my readers through my writing. I will not use the "Summarize Claims" approach as it is not interesting or creative.

JF10. "Super Mario World The End." 12/16/2007 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

The following two conclusions are my original and revised conclusions to my rhetorical essay on the effectiveness of the author's rhetorical strategies on his audience. The newly reconstructed conclusion that I have created is better than my original in a sense that it now answers the question of "So What?" My readers can now gain a sense of understanding that the topic is far from over and debate will continue years after reading my essay. The recreated version will better help a reader draw his or her own views from the article and my essay without me having to force the information upon them.

Original Conclusion:

The prominent three rhetorical strategies presented by Plumer, as previously stated, are: the use of an interview, the formatting of an article based on the interview, and the presentation of arguments with counterarguments and refutations. He uses these strategies to aid a reader in better understanding the context of geoengineering and its applications with regards to global engineering. In review, the use of an interview greatly increases a reader’s ability to comprehend a person’s opinions and beliefs from which he or she is commenting or answering in the interview. The author’s choice of formatting his article in comparison to the interview is a great addition to the using the strategy of an interview itself. And lastly, how the author conveys questions in argument presentation form while Keith reluctantly answers in a two sided manner helps a reader develop a clear understanding of Keith’s opinions from his responses in the interview. These strategies employed by Plumer help his article become a significant source of information on geoengineering from the view of an advocate of the methods used. His goals are seemingly to inform his readers the ideology behind solar geoengineering while also giving evidence of the support for it and the possible risks that come with it.

Here is the link to my rhetorical essay that this conclusion paragraph came from.


Revised Conclusion:

As the article’s rhetorical strategies positively affect the audience’s ability to understand the information given within it, one must look at the possible outcomes to its effectivity. If a reader is truly comprehending the information presented, then how will he or she form opinions on the matter. In a debate, or a controversy, a person will most likely pick a side to support, that person will form certain views on a subject depending on the portrayal of information given from a source. In review, the author of the article chooses to focus in on the rhetoric of using an interview, formatting the article based on that interview, and then presenting arguments for counterarguments to arise in a way such that a reader can understand where each person is coming from. Drawing back to the possible outcomes, one may wonder where would a reader go from here on after reading the article. He or she taking from the information may decide to take an immediate stance on the topic or decide on sitting this round out. The author uses an effective array of strategies that would allow for a reader to draw his own understanding rather than having it forced upon him. Plumer’s goals are seemingly to inform his audience the ideology behind solar geoengineering with regards to global warming, while also giving evidence of the support for it and the possible risks that come with it.

Revised Introduction

This blog post is a presentation of a revision to my introductory paragraph of my rhetorical essay. I have included my original introduction to compare with my newly revamped one directly underneath with a starting explanation as to why my reconstructed paragraph is better than the original.

Tom Morris. "A paraody of the famous "We Can Do It!" poster." 03/08/2012 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

The following two introductions are my original and revised introductions to my rhetorical essay on the effectiveness of the author's rhetorical strategies on his audience. The newly reconstructed introduction that I have created is better than my original in a sense that it now actually presents the effectiveness towards an audience rather than it being just about the rhetorical strategies themselves. The recreated version can better help a reader get an understanding on what is being analyzed while also getting additional insight on what the controversy actually is.

Original Introduction:

Over the past several years, the topic of geoengineering has become a growing controversy. The idea that man can engineering the planet’s climate to solve worldy problems has people wondering the effectiveness that the methods could have. In a relatively recent interview with climate scientist David Keith, reporter Brad Plumer asks Keith the ideas surrounding the idea of what he calls, “solar engineering.” What Keith says in the interview may have people fuming while others may accept his ideas with open arms. This essay will focus on the rhetorical strategies Plumer and Keith use to effectively give their readers a sense of connection. The Washington Post’s Brad Plumer and David Keith, who also carries the title of Harvard Professor and Carbon Engineering co-founder, utilize multiple rhetorical strategies to better connect with readers to aid in the presentation of geoengineering and the environment.

Here is the link to my rhetorical essay that this introduction paragraph came from.


Revised Introduction:

Fracking has recently come under fire as studies showing its risks have come apparent; solar radiation management, although in confusion, has people wondering the actual effects that it has on the environment if any; carbon dioxide capturing has been dubbed a money-seeking dead-end in the words of critics from around the world. All of these processes are most related to the ideology of geoengineering. One may ask what that is -- geoengineering is the process of engineering the planet’s natural occurrences to better our lives. But this does not always mean that it will benefit our futures. The use of geoengineering in the earth and in the atmosphere are hot topics on the stovetop as groupings argue for or against the methods employed. In a relatively recent interview with climate scientist, David Keith, reporter Brad Plumer asks for his subject’s personal opinions and ideas surrounding geoengineering. The interview focuses in on the topic of what Keith calls, “solar geoengineering” or solar radiation management -- which is the process of maintaining a stable and healthy level of solar radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The idea that man can engineering the planet’s climate to solve worldly problems has people questioning the effects that could be intentionally or unintentionally implemented on the Earth. This essay will focus on the effectiveness that Plumer’s rhetorical strategies have in connecting with the audiences that are attracted to his article, “Should we use geoengineering to cool the Earth? An interview with David Keith.”

Reflection on Project II Draft

If you have noticed, or not, I have commented on two of my peers' project drafts in the past week. I have read the drafts as closely and as carefully as possible and read each at least twice. Taking into consideration the project's guidelines via D2L, I tried my best to gear my suggestions towards helping the authors meet those requirements.

Here are the hyperlinks to the two students' drafts that I reviewed and commented on: Jayni's Project 2 draft titled, "Working Title" and Brandon's Project 2 draft titled, "The Wealth of The DNA Code: The Growing Industry of Privatized Genetic Mapping".

Nic McPhee. "Editing a paper." 01/26/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. Do you have an identifiable thesis? Does it point to the specific rhetorical strategies you analyze in your essay, or are you merely using vague terms like ethos, pathos, and logos?

I do include an identifiable thesis in my rhetorical essay. It points more towards strategies having to relate with appeals to credibility and character, and appeals to logic (ethos, logos). Specific rhetoric includes the acknowledgement of counter arguments and refutations, the use of an interview, and the effective organization of sub-topics within the article.

2. How have you decided to organize you essay? Does each paragraph have a central point that is supported with evidence from the text and in-depth analysis?

I have decided on organizing my essay by paragraph topics. In my first body paragraph, I talk about how the author's effective use of an interview helps his reader's better relate to the information. In the second body, I discuss and break down the organization that the author uses to format his article in a way that helps audiences navigate with ease. And lastly, in my third body paragraph, I analyzed the author's arguments that he presents to his subject and how the subject counter argues with supporting evidence.

3. Did you clearly identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation and/or structure?

I clearly identified and deeply analyzed three important elements of the text's rhetorical structure. Them being either appealing to credibility or appealing to logic, the elements serve to help readers better understand the context.

4. Did you explain how and why certain rhetorical strategies were employed? Did you discuss what effects theses strategies have on the intended audience and overall effectiveness of the text?

I discussed the effectiveness of the author's rhetorical strategies towards the audience. I analyzed three of the rhetorical strategies that the author used and discussed the effectiveness of their use in his article and in his interview.

5. Are you thoughtfully using evidence in each paragraph? Do you mention specific examples from the text and explain why they are relevant?

I included and meshed in multiple pieces of evidence in each one of my paragraphs. I drew from the author's article to find the information that I had included. I did indeed mention specific examples from the text and I did give an explanation as to why it was relevant in the effectiveness of portraying the right idea to the audience.

6. Do you leave your reader wanting more? 

I do not leave my reader wanting more as I gave everything he or she needs to know on the effectivity of the author's rhetorical strategies. Although maybe not the entirety of the strategies were discussed, I was able to break down the major proponents of the article for my audience.

Punctuation, Part I

In this blog post I will explore the use of punctuation in a written work by basing my finding off of the book, Rules for Writers, as well as off my own experiences and writing history. I will highlight three topics in the Punctuation section of the textbook and discuss what I have learned on the new materials I have encountered.

Darin McClure. "Punctuation Saves  Lives!" 09/30/2011 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. The Comma

As you have most likely seen this post's main photo, the use of a comma is very important in the worlds of grammar and writing. If the comma were not present, then grandma would have been eaten by now, but since it was corrected, everything other than grandma was eaten. Good eye to the person who say that mistake.

Something new that I have just recently found important to include in my writings is the use of a comma before a coordinating conjunction that joins an independent clause. I started doing this process before reading the textbook, but I would still consider it a new learning.

Another convention that needs enforcement in my writings is the correct use of commas used to separate adjective clauses and adjective phrases. It is very important to use commas here or the verb or object can change and the meaning of a sentence can change dramatically.

2. The Semicolon

This tool is used to connect major sentence elements of similar grammatical level. Using semicolons can greatly tie together these ideas to help a reader better understand a single subject. If both statements are stated separately, then the messages could be portrayed very differently if they were conjoined.

The semicolon should be used between independent clauses linked with a transitional expression. Expressions include both conjunctive adverbs and transitional phrases. Some examples are: hence, instead, subsequently, for the use of a conjunctive adverb, and after all, in conclusion, on the contrary, for the use of a transitional phrase.

Another simple use of the semicolon that I found useful would be between items in a series containing internal punctuation. Without semicolons in this form, a reader would have to find the major groupings by alone, which obviously causes a break in information being given.

3. The Colon

The colon, unlike the semicolon, is used to primarily call attention to the words that follow it. It also has conventional uses. I found that the use of a colon is great for inclusion after an independent clause to attention to a list, an appositive, a quotation, or a summary or an explanation.

Other uses are in a conventional manner and include the use in: a salutation in a letter, for hours and minutes, proportions, in a title or subtitle, in bibliographic entries. I find these uses in conventional settings a good learning experiences as I will now use them in my writings where applicable or where needed.


Reflection: I peer reviewed two of my classmate's rhetorical project drafts. I read and analyzed Jayni's and Brandon's drafts. From their drafts as well as mine, I found that punctuation is very important in directing the correct message across to an audience. The absence or the presence of a certain punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence or even entire idea if used in an incorrect manner.

From Jayni's draft I found a sentence that was worded very awkwardly with the use of several commas in a likewise manner. Here is her sentence: "In order to decrease these harmful emissions, people have been searching for an alternative substance to use, and they decided upon natural gas." I gave a suggestion to change around the sentence with one less comma and the use of all present tense wording.

In Brandon's draft, I found a sentence that contains the use of quotations that are not exactly needed. The sentence reads, "It is at this point where she drops the "shocking statistic" to prepare for her claim." The quotations around "shocking statistic" are not needed as the paragraph was introduced as being about the author's use of said statistics in her writing.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Here it is. A draft of my rhetorical analysis will be hyperlinked later in this post, but first let me break it down for you in this short paragraph. This rhetorical analysis is my argument in support of the use of geoengineering methods to solve the world's global warming problem.

I have analyzed an article from The Washington Post in depth. The article was posted by reporter, Brad Plumer, and he interviews climate scientist, David Keith, for the basis of the publication. Please be aware that these opinions are my own thoughts; I would like my readers to leave feedback that reflects thoughts to my writing in an uncensored version, meaning I would like to know the good and the bad of my argument.

MenosKeTiago. "Stop Global Warming." 10/02/2009 via deviantart.com. Public Domain Dedication

Now for the link to the draft of my rhetorical analysis covering this great debate: "Geoengineering Can Solve The Planet's Global Warming Problem, According To David Keith." Enjoy!

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In this post I will practice rhetorical analysis by summarizing and paraphrasing a quote I have taken from the article I have been breaking down. The article comes from The Washington Post and is written by Brad Plumer, who interviews climate scientist, David Keith, for the context of the publication.

James Wheeler. "Reflective Clouds Along Trans Canada Highway." 07/27/2012 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication

QUOTE:

In response to Brad Plumer's question: "Okay. So, reflecting sunlight to cool the planet -- why should we consider this?"

David Keith: "The best case for taking solar geoengineering seriously is that the balance of scientific evidence we have -- from the same kind of climate models and other science that we use to understand climate change -- suggests that these technologies could, if used carefully, significantly reduce climate risk. Full stop."


My Summary of the Original Source:

Climate scientist David Keith believes that with the scientific evidence we have today, the use of methods to reflect sunlight to cool the planet can significantly reduce the problem of climate change due to global warming.


My Paraphrase of the Original Source:

David Keith believes that solar geoengineering's method of "reflecting sunlight to cool the planet" can "significantly reduce climate risk." This is all based off the amount of scientific evidence that we have "from the same kind of climate models ... [used] to understand climate change."

Project 2 Outline

In this post, I will review and analyze a portion of the text from Writing Public Lives. I will also be outlining my upcoming rhetorical analysis of the article I have been breaking down in my previous posts. The article highlights climate scientist David Keith's views of geoengineering on a biased standpoint being an advocate while being interviewed.

Nicholas A. Tonelli. "Thunderhead." 06/12/2007 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

REVIEW of Writing Public Lives: Writing Your Rhetorical Analysis by Christopher Minnix

Starting with the Introduction,  I find the statement, "shape your introduction in a way that helps you achieve the goal or purpose of your analysis" (Minnix 122), to be very helpful for when I create my starting paragraph. I am going to want to stay focused on the main idea of my analysis on of Brad Plumer's interview with David Keith during my introduction. This will need me to provide enough background information to include in the opening statements before delving deeper into my rhetorical analysis. Minnix stresses that developing an analytical claim is important because it "is your major argument or point about the text that you are analyzing" (Minnix 123). Creating an analytical claim will need the following attributes - debatability and supportability. Moving on to the body of an rhetorical analysis, I will need to frame my argument with "strong textual evidence to back up [my] focus or supporting arguments" (Minnix 124). Drawing strong conclusions after each body paragraph will help readers better understand the information presented before them. Lastly, when constructing a conclusion I will not just restate the main points of my argument, but I will "analyze how the text attempts to persuade its readers and whether or not it is persuasive" (Minnix 125). All in all, I will freely develop my own implications for my conclusion as well as the rest of my paper based on my research into the topic, and my understanding on the article and the people presented within it.



OUTLINE

Introduction:

• Background Information
• Give description as to what geoengineering entails, what solar engineering entails
• Explain what the controversy is and why people are upset

• Thesis
• "Climate scientist and Harvard professor, David Keith, can help the world's misunderstood better understand the benefits and risks of geoengineering methods by weighing in his expert opinion with regards to solving global warming."

Body I: The Use of an Interview

• Focus / Topic

• The use of an interview in this article works great to convey information
• Plumer's choice helps his readers get a breakdown of each specified sub-topic

• Textual Support to Topic

• "...climate scientist David Keith has long argued that we should start thinking seriously about both strategies."

• Both strategies being: "Stop adding carbon-dioxide to the atmosphere." and "try to artificially cool the planet."

• The interview was initiated with the purpose of talking to Keith about his new book, "A Case for Climate Engineering"

• Conclusion

• Discuss how Plumer's use of an interview is most effective
• Dicuss why an interview would be best to explain a person's thoughts

Body II: Organization of the Interview

• Focus / Topic

• Plumer logically constructs his article in the format of an interview
• Using this format helps distinguish between each question paired with its answer

• Textual Support to Topic

• Plumer uses bold text to introduce each subcategory in his article

• Each subcategory is introduced with a question by Plumer followed by the response from David Keith

• For each question that Plumer asks, Keith goes in depth to explain his standpoint and views to the question being asked with regards to the plant's climate

• Conclusion

• Discuss why Plumer's article format is best for this type of publication
• Discuss how a question and answer organization is the best format

Body III: Arguments Presented by Plumer with Counterarguments from Keith

• Focus / Topic

• Keith presents the benefits and the risks of using solar engineering
• He gives examples and possibilities of predicted outcomes as well as consequences

• Textual Support to Topic

• Keith provides reasonable statements to say his claims will not work in the short-term. "Nothing we know about cutting carbon-dioxide emissions says that's going to help us deal with the risk of CO2 that's already in the atmosphere, or deal with climate risks in the very short term."

• He provides a counterargument with regards to geoengineering in terms of misuse. "People often talk about using these technologies to return temperatures to pre-industrial levels. If you do that, that would be a dramatic climate cooling, with bad consequences, like reducing precipitation a lot."

• The climate scientist provides his support for geoengineering while also giving a reasonable amount of attention to the risks. In his mind, he still is a very strong advocate of geoengineering the planet's natural occurrences to reduce the human impact. He states with regards to his company, "(And full disclosure: I work on a company related to that.)." This statement, which Plumer decides to include, tells a reader that Keith wants to continue to argue his evidence even though stating possible risks.

• The company Keith works on is called Carbon Engineering, and their goal is to reduce the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere by use of giant vacuums whose sole purpose is to remove such unwanted atoms.

• Conclusion

• Discuss the importance of understanding both the good and the bad of geoengineering methods used to solve global warming
• Present the idea that readers can get a glimpse of both sides of the debate

Conclusion:

• Review the three strategies (use of an interview, formatting article for interview, presenting counterarguments and refutations) that Plumer uses in his article and find the importance of each

• Explain how these strategies represent the goals of Brad Plumer for his article and interview

Reflection: Looking at Savannah's outline for her project got me inspired to create an essay of myself that would focus mainly on relating to my readers to get them to understand the topic with more ease. She has presented a very effective way of getting the information of rhetorical strategies across and will definitely help her in the long run. Isabel chose to format her outline in a way that will help her readers understand what she want them to understand easier. She includeds four different body sections that will explain the debate and give an example of electric stimulation as described in the view of the article author, Gad Alon. She should have no problem producing a great paper.

Draft Thesis Statements

This post will break down the key points behind my controversy and will present a few thesis statements I have constructed based off of them. I used the method given in the Student's Guide to First Year Writing textbook on page 192. The title of the process is "Creating a Rhetorical Analysis Thesis Statement."

francois schnell. "pen and paper." 03/11/2011 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Pertinent Information

Author: Brad Plumer, Interviewee: David Keith, climate scientist

Publisher: The Washington Post, published on October 30, 2013

Purpose: To inform readers of David Keith's views on geoengineering, more specifically solar engineering or what he calls, "solar radiation engineering." He is an advocate for such methods to aid in the issue of global warming, thus making him a biased but informative source.

Audience: People interested in the aspects of geoengineering or solar engineering in global warming. This article may also cater to people wanting to better understand the viewpoint of an advocate for geoengineering.

Ethos: Use of a reliable but non-credible source; Acknowledgement of counterarguments and refutations to those arguments; Appeals to values or beliefs

Pathos: Repetition of key words surrounding geoengineering and global warming; Word drawing of images of beneficial methods to solve global warming; Neutral tone of voice

Logos: Use of an interview and an expert's opinions; Effective organization of questions and answers; Clear transitions between sections of text


Parts of Rhetorical Situation to Include in Thesis Statements

• Acknowledgement of counterarguments
• Repetition of key words surrounding geoengineering and global warming
• The use of David Keith's expert opinions

Thesis Statements

1. "In his interview with Plumer, David Keith can help an audience questioning the methods of geoengineering used to solve global warming by giving his expert opinions and extensive research on the subject."

• This thesis statement paints a clear picture to readers that Keith is an expert that presents geoengineering as an advocate for the cause.
• Readers will be able to make first thoughts that Keith is an expert on the subject.
• Readers confused thus far about the topic of the paper can now understand that connections between geoengineering, or solar engineering, and global warming will be made apparent.

2. "Climate scientist and Harvard Professor, David Keith, can help the world's misunderstood better understand the benefits and risks of geoengineering methods by weighing in his expert opinion with its regards to solving global warming."

• Although very similar to the first thesis statement, this statement gives an extended title to the person being interviewed by Brad Plumer.
• The title gives additional professionalism to a widely unknown individual.
• Readers can understand that the paper will cover the good and the bad of geoengineering as drawn from the views and opinions of David Keith.
• This thesis tells that the paper will be catered to the population of readers who are misunderstanding the context of the subject.

Reflection: Looking at my own thesis statements compared to Alyssa's and Savannah's as they have constructed and posted in their blogs makes the ones I created look like slop. Alyssa was able to present her blog readers with two very similar yet very focus different thesis statements. She aims to inform her future readers of the stance of the people on the method of circumcision, an ongoing debate on whether it is a good process to use or not. Savannah presents two thesis statements much different that Alyssa, but along the same lines of the human body. Her article is on the ethics of genetic engineering babies. She constructs two thesis statements that have to do with Parry's effective argument going against the practice of gene editing in human code. Parry is the author of the article that Savannah had researched.

Analyzing My Audience

Today I will analyze my audience in my controversy. If you recall, I have been following the issues surrounding geoengineering, more specifically the methods used with regards to reducing global warming. Here is the article written by Brad Plummer. The following questions are from the Student's Guide to First Year Writing page 40.

tgw. "IG2005 master class audience." 07/08/2005 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. Who am I writing for?

My audience is the population of engineering students worldwide who hold an interest or a take in position on the issue of geoengineering. A subcategory can also be labeled with "global warming." Another subcategory might include the topic on "solar engineering." The people who will read this article are individuals seeking additional knowledge on the subject or persons who are researching the matter to gain insight on what they have learned thus far.

2. What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

If an engineering student were to read this article and my future essay, they will most likely want to know more and how geoengineering is beneficially to creating a healthier environment. They would want to know more how the methods employed can help reduce the current negative human impact on the climate and the earth. I will need to mildly advocate for Keith's views without compromising my credibility as an author.

3. What will they want to know?

Again, this depends on the original mindset and views of the each individual reader. A person with no knowledge on the matter may not want to read this article as it is very biased. He or she may be swayed to support geoengineering without knowing any consequences or risks. If a person has a prior negative view of geoengineering, he may strongly disagree with this article and may or may not even become annoyed and irritated.

4. How might they react to my argument?


The reaction of the audience may or may not be hostile. Depending on the views of certain readers, one may find the argument inappropriate and another may find that the statements by Keith reasonable. All in all, for this question and the past two questions related to this one, a supporter of geoengineering would find this article appealing and an opposer would find it appalling. A person who has views of neither side may sway in support with just this knowledge or just find the information crazy to comprehend.

5. How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

As an author I want to connect with most of my audience, if not all. I am catering to any engineering student or students who find an interest in knowing more about geoengineering and the issues surrounding its use on the environment. My goal is to find the point in between where both sides of the argument can compromise to come to an understanding what the controversy actually is. I want to inform rather than evoke emotion, but I also do not want to prohibit emotion from coming into play if a reader finds a statement rather absurd in his mind.

6. Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

Key words to help convey a stronger message would be the use of "worldwide" and "controversy." As an author, I wants this issue to be widely known and to portray a sense of urgency towards the problem. I will focus on global warming and highlight the questions asked to Keith on the topic. I will bring up Plumer's interviewing method as an effective way to help his readers relate on a personal basis.



Reflection: I read, analyzed and commented on the mirror posts to this one of Isabel and Savannah. Isabel's audience is going to be very different from mine in that hers caters to the population of medical students while mine is aimed towards the majority of engineering students. Her topic is very interesting and would like to read more as her project become more and more finalized. As a student currently interested in biomedical engineering as a future occupation, I am excited to find out more on the devices and techniques used in electric stimulation. Savannah presents her topic to her audience of engineering students. We both want these types of students to read our essays because they might find it very informative. Although I am looking at geoengineering and Savannah is looking at genetic engineering, we both find the same techniques to inform our audiences of the correlation between controversy and engineering.