Thursday, November 19, 2015

Reflection on Project III

In this post, I will reflect on my project as a whole. Project 3 was an achievement to myself and I feel very good about what I had to say and how I said it. With that, I will present my answers as given on Writing Public Lives page 520 with regards to the revision process of my public argument. Enjoy.

849356. "Mirroring Ball Reflection Mirror About Reflex." 04/12/2015 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

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

I changed my mentality as an author towards my goal. In my draft, I was unaware of how direct I could go with my argumentation. After meeting with Sean during conferences, I was assured that including a strong and very persuasive tone throughout my argument would be most effective. Thus, my tone between drafts are much different. My final product is my best, and most intimidating, piece I have written in this class.


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

I chose to organize my article based on different aspects of geoengineering. Before my revisions, my original rough draft was very disjointed and was not smooth when transitioning into different topics due to the fact that aspects of a topic were placed throughout the entire article. This mistake on my part had left my draft audience confused and pondering my intent.


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

Clarifying with my instructor as well as my peers that a public argumentation is meant to be stern and outright is what led me to change the majority of my writing. Their aid in my writing is what helped produce the end product. My audience remained the same and my purpose was the same as well. The only difference in my writing from my first draft to my final product is my tone of voice and how I conveyed my information.


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

These changes have labeled me as a more credible source than if I were to have not revised and called my original draft my final product. My reorganization, my edits, my changes are what has made me a credible source of information and have increased my level of trust with my audience as I continue to attempt to persuade audiences.


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

These changes will get my audience to better understand the urgency of the issue. That they must take action before more harm is done. With my previous tone of voice, my readers may have experienced a sense of doubt, but after revising heavily, I feel my argument would withstand in many more debates to come.


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

My sentence structure is still in the third-person, but I have changed my tone of voice. Each sentence now caters to a strong intent of persuading my audience. I do not try to come across something as lightly but very stern as the issue at hand is in fact life or death. Changing my sentences has changed the style of my article into something that forcefully argues against an idea, which in this case is the methods of geoengineering.


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

Now that I have reorganized my article, my audience will be able to better understand my purpose. Before my edits, my writings were complex and very unclear as they were disorderly. Once I recognized these errors, I went back into my writings to change what needed changing to get my readers to clearly and easily understand my views. The hard part then would only be for them to decide whether my argument is legitimate and if they should support my opinions.


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

Throughout my writing process,  I did not reconsider the conventions on my genre. I merely elaborated upon them and increased my intention of persuading my readers that the information I gave was meant to refute the solutions and methods being employed by geoengineers.


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

Through this project, and the previous ones, I would say my writing skills have not changed. But on the contrary, my skills to construct, to organize and to strengthen my writing has definitely bettered my identity as a writer. As I now just realize the question, I would say it does not make me reconsider my identity, but it actually just reenforces my thoughts that I am a terrible writer. The reflection process makes me think about how much I could better my writing if I were to actually reflect upon my pieces before finalizing them and after publishing them.


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Publishing Public Argument

In this post I will answer several questions with regards to my recently published Project 3 public argument. I will provide information about my audience's stand on the issue and how they should feel after reading my article. I will also discuss the appeals of ethos, pathos and logos in my article very briefly.

Zappys Technology Solutions. "Newton's-Third-Law-Discussion-Questions."
10/14/2014 via Flickr. Public Domain Decdication.

1. Where do you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue before your argument?

Depending on my audience's pervious view on the issue, I can guess that their standing would be of either of slight disagreement or of slight agreement. I would not expect my audience to hold any strong or intense views until after reading my argument or anyone else's that would seem to convey similar messages as mine.


2. Where do you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue after your argument?

I feel my audience would strongly agree with my views, statements, and opinions after reading my public argument. I feel confident that I would have convinced my readers that geoengineering is negatively impacting our planet and the human race. However, if someone does not agree, I would expect them to stand strongly in discontent with my argument. Either way, the resulting views will be of strong agreement or of strong disagreement.


3. What kind of argument type is your public argument?

My argument is a refutation to solutions presented and currently being practiced for the problem of environmental issues. The main issue of what these "solutions" serve to solve is the problem of global warming. My argument states the wrongs of what these methods have on the environment and what they will have on people and life on Earth if they continue to be used.


4. Explain how your argument provides original context and insight.

Although I use much data and statistics presented by other sources throughout my argument, I am able to present a new state of mind to people concerned over the methods people are using to combat global environmental issues. I have presented different points, although talked about before, that help guide readers down the path that will serve them good in the end once they learn the truth behind geoengineering.


5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed in your public argument.

From the ethical and credible side of the appeals employed: I referenced credible sources, I used carefully chosen key words and phrases that demonstrate my credibility, I arranged visual elements properly, and I openly acknowledged counterarguments and refuted them intelligently.

For emotional appeals, I chose to keep the feelings of my audience uninvolved as much as possible. I chose the use of data and statistics to merely evoke shock value from my readers to get them to see the larger picture of the harm that geoengineering is causing.

The third appeal relates to the logical and rational side of my argument. I chose to employ the following appeals: use of statistics from credible sources, use of expert opinions that help affirm my stance, use of effective organization, sequence of images/text to make my arguments linear, intentional emphasis on specific topics to strengthen my argument, and the use of clear transitions between different sections of my argument.


6. Provide working hyperlinks to examples of the genre you've chosen to write in.

These sources are all derived from The Atlantic.
a. Free Speech Isn't Free
b. Islamophobia Is Not a Myth
c. The Boyfriend Myth


Project III: Public Argument on Geoengineering

This writing, although published directly into this blog post, is meant for publication on a reputable media outlet such as The Atlantic, either on their news feed or on their online magazine. I directly integrated the writing into Blogger as a means of appearance for my blog audience. Enjoy.

_________________________________________________________________________________



The Real Story Behind the Effects of Geoengineering Methods
By Nick Quon


The idea of helping the planet and helping the human race for future generations has been long supported and in recent decades has resulted in positive outcomes. There is, however, the inevitable idea of certain individuals who just want to profit off of a method which will cause destruction when they say it only benefits. This is the case in the field of geoengineering. This topic is the processes of utilizing the methods of engineering for environmental use -- mainly being used on the earth’s crust, the planet’s oceans, or the various layers of atmosphere. People need to see these as the enemy of the human race. These processes can have catastrophic consequences and could lead to the demise of all people on Earth. Through all of this, what can one do to stop it?


One such group that is not going by a name but a cause, is the Global March Against Chemtrails And Geoengineering. Their website is a blog-style bulletin; they aim their posts at the degradation of geoengineering. From this website, their mission is stated as, “No 2 Climate Engineering.” One topic the group strives to get people to understand is the process of chemtrails, in which companies and/or organizations spray reflective, metal particles into the sky to what they say, “reduce the effects of the sun’s rays.” Many have testified that these “beneficiaries” are not to good for the human health and can lead to respiratory problems. Climate scientist David Keith, who is also an applied physics professor at Harvard, is an advocator of geoengineering, but also reveals the flaws of such processes. People do not know the true effects of using such methods on the environment which is why people have been up in arms over their use.


The method of chemtrails have been a hot topic in the field of engineering. Scientists, pilots, and doctors have all testified that releasing chemicals into the air is harmful to human health. From a hearing out of Shasta County in California on July 14, 2014, experts were able to voice their evidence on the harmful effects of chemtrails and geoengineering uses. Here is the video:




These experts, even though they are not engineers, can still see the harm the method of chemtrails is doing to the atmosphere, the soil, and the planet as a whole. The information presented includes the increasing amount of aluminum in the environment, which is obviously not natural. There should be no amounts of aluminum freely circulating about the planet’s environment. Aluminum is not the only metal being used but also includes various types of nanoparticles. Such particles are often found in explosives and other highly volatile devices and chemicals. An article published in 2008 on Nature.com, gives reliable data through a chart that ranks different aspects of several methods of geoengineering based on variables including, efficacy, affordability, safety, and rapidity. The more color shown for a variable and a method means that it is in a larger amount or in a larger essence.




Studies have been conducted on the effects of the chemicals used in geoengineering methods linked to climate engineering. Such studies have been done by the government as well as privatized corporations and universities. The Air Force has conducted an experiment that resulted in the find that there are increasing amounts of metals in the environment. Another such metal being used is iron. The element is being laid into the oceans to encourage the reproduction of a microalgae that can absorb carbon dioxide. Such microalgae produces oxygen and carbohydrates with the consumption of carbon dioxide;this is highly controversial because the plant also releases dimethyl sulfide (DMS) into the atmosphere. DMS can form into sulfate aerosols which then can directly reflect sunlight or increase cloud amounts as well as their reflectivity. This can all result in positive effects, but in a large-scale test, the results can yield undesirable climate impacts which could potentially turn consequential. Research scientist at MIT, Chien Wang, has studied the effects and has commented, “Discussions of geoengineering are gaining ground recently, so it’s important to understand any unintended consequences.” Wang is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Change, and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT. He and a colleague, Benjamin Grandey, conducted an experiment utilizing iron deposits in the planet’s oceans and found results that would point towards a plethora of negative effects. Grandey is a senior postdoc in Wang’s group who configured model simulations and analyzed data during the study. He has also stated the risks of adding metal into the ocean -- “our results suggest that the cooling effect associated with enhanced DMS emissions would offset warming across the globe.” This would radically affect the temperatures around the world. Grandey has also commented about planetary rainfall following the study -- “Precipitation would also decline worldwide, and some parts of the world would be worse off. Europe, the Horn of Africa, and Pakistan may receive less rainfall than they have historically.” In the video below, the process of adding iron to the ocean is displayed and broken down with resulting potential events.




Even though both are scientists testing the geoengineering, that does not mean they are advocators or opposers. They have warned that the lower rainfall could reduce water resources considerably, thus leading the planet into the worst drought any area has ever experienced. The low precipitation could also threaten the hydrological cycle, the environment and the livelihoods in the affected regions. All in all, the adverse effects of geoengineering on the environment is tremendous and the public should take action to stopping such methods from being utilized worldwide to prevent irregular health to the future generations.


Banning geoengineering is the main goal of many people. Such as the hearing in Shasta County, where concerned residents and reputable experts voice their opinions on the matter. Not only do sparks fly during their speeches, so does the wide variety of evidence against the methods of geoengineering, namely chemtrails and solar radiation management. These experts want to see change in their county, and they know that their is an entire county to back them. They understand it is time to set limits on the amount of chemicals that humans are permitted to release into the atmosphere. Currently, there are multiple ordinances in place to reduce their uses by setting incentives as well as placing fines on those who choose to alter the environment in a way that is excessive and harmful. People everywhere are choosing to take action through the act of protest, the starting of petitions, the voicing of their opinions, and the encouragement of solid evidence against geoengineering. Not only do geoengineering methods cause environmental problems, they have also been linked to cancer and alzheimer’s disease, the latter from the metals being sprayed to reflect the sun’s rays. An international organization, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, has long been in the debate over geoengineering. Although the group voiced its opinion into many different topics, geoengineering is one of the main controversies the organization is involved with. In June of 2012, ETC Group published a map pertaining to the level of geoengineering being conducted worldwide. The map also includes what methods are being used in what countries; landmark projects related to geoengineering is also included to intensify the shock of how geoengineering is changing the lives of people globally in a negative manner. The map published by the group is hyperlinked below.




It is inevitable that geoengineering will continue to occur everywhere. People will not stop until there is solid proof that geoengineering, as a whole, is ruining the environment and resulting in catastrophic effects. The use of aerosol spray and the addition of iron into the world’s oceans are firm examples of how absurd people have become to resort to such risky experiments. Looking at the chart that was included previously that was published on Nature.com, it is clear that no method is worth the price, the risks and the scrutiny. People must act to stop the processes before they get increasingly out of hand and before others start to use the methods against people to cause harm. In many sources, it has been said that the power to change the environment could turn bad when someone decides to use it for their own personal gain, especially when the power is so easily obtainable.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Reflection on Project III Draft

In this post, I will be reflecting on my progress of Project 3. Now that my draft is complete, it is time to revise and edit. But before doing so, I need to look at the overall picture of my draft and break it down so my audience understands and mainly me. But before looking at my draft, I have conducted a peer review on two of my classmates that I would like analyze before speaking about my own.

I peer reviewed Savannah's project 3 draft as well as Morgan's project 3 draft. Here are the peer review sheets I filled out:

Peer review on Savannah's project draft.
Peer review on Morgan's project draft.


Polimerek. "A reviewer at the American National Institutes of Health evaluates a grant proposal."
08/22/2005 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Here are some questions I will answer with regards to my own Project 3 draft:

1. Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft? 

Savannah Smith reviewed my Project 3 draft.

2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received?

I feel appreciative that Savannah took the time to look over my draft thoroughly to find anything that may need reworking. Her peer review was very well detailed and will help me reconstruct my project into something worthy of publishing on a notable site such as The Atlantic.

3. What aspects of Project 3 need the most attention? How do you plan on addressing them?

After meeting with Mr. Bottai during conferences this past week, I felt more confident in rethinking my project for the next several drafts I will produce before finalizing my project. I need to pay special attention to reenforcing my argument with more strong and persuasive wording and structuring. I plan on restructuring my entire article into a more strongly worded piece that will definitely turn heads in the end.

4. How are you feeling about your project after peer review and conferences this week?

I feel very confident about my project after meeting with Sean and after Savannah helped point out the weaknesses in my draft through her peer review. After clarifying the main points with Sean during our meeting, I feel I can make my end product a very persuasive and very effective piece.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Draft of Public Argument

In this post, I will present to you the draft of my public argument. I have set the document with commenting capabilities for my audience's use. Please keep in mind that I am refuting the methods of geoengineering and am trying to persuade my audience that the risks totally outweigh any benefits presented by supporting parties. My argument is backed up by the facts and opinions presented in prior years by experts in the field of geoengineering and its counterparts. I have also included statistical and graphical evidence to support my arguments towards persuading my audience that geoengineering is harming the planet's ecosystems.

Here is the link to the draft of my public argument covering geoengineering. Enjoy!

Eisenmenger. "Noodles Pasta Italian Food Eat Carbohydrates Cook." 10/21/2014 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Considering Visual Elements

This post will do what the title of it literally suggests, considering the visual elements of my public argument. Drawing from the Writing Public Lives text pages 395 to 402, I will answer a selection of questions from each of the four criterion for visual rhetoric provided. The four topics are as follows: Design, Salience, Organization, & Impact.

Comestai. "Yota Space - MSA Visuals - Body Paintings Installation."
09/09/2011 via Wikimedia. Public Domain Dedication.
Creating Visual Coherence pg 395-6

1. If my project uses graphics, are these graphics appropriate to the visual-rhetoric tone? The graphics I choose to include in my project will be visually appropriate for the issue being discussed. Graphics will mainly consist of data and statistics supporting the methods of geoengineering.

2. If my project uses headings, do these headings stand out and break up the text clearly? If I were to included headings, I would have them stand out clearly to make for smoother transitions between subtopics. I might use bold text or a different color, but I am unsure at this time.

3. If lines are used to break up my text, are they clearly visible from a distance? If I were to include lines for separation purposes, I would make it a bold enough line to see at a distance. I may use a different color that the text but want to try to keep it neutral.

4. If lines are used, do they create a clear visual flow for my project? Using lines in my argument would most likely appear when presenting data, statistics, charts, or graphs. These will help a reader understand the flow of information in my argument without having to figure out where to look.

5. Are the fonts appropriate to the visual-rhetorical tone of my project? For my article,  I am going to keep my font the same for the entirety of it. This is to ensure that the article flows consistently and does not leave a reader wondering why I chose to change the font midway through the article.

6. If my project is displayed, are the fonts large enough to be read at a distance? If my project was displayed, I would simply increase the font size and bold my text. As it is an article, it will mainly be presented in online article sources. But if it is ever to be displayed on a projector for many people to see, the font would obviously need to be increased for people at a distance to read.

7. If my project has a background, what color is most appropriate? My article will most likely not include a background. However, if I did choose to change up my project to a visual aid, then a background with relation to geoengineering the environment.


Creating Visual Salience pg 398

1. Is the theme or association that the image produces relevant to the theme? The image I would choose to display the benefits of geoengineering would be relevant to the theme of my argument in that the image would support it.

2. Is the feeling or tone that the image invokes appropriate to the visual-rhetorical tone? The feeling that the image invokes would not be of an emotional ploy. It is simply to inform and to persuade readers of the benefits of geoengineering and its counterparts.

3. Does the image inform or emphasize my argument in an appropriate way? The image does and will emphasize the benefits of the subject to my argument. It will persuade my audience to believe that geoengineering is the solution to the planet's environmental problems.

4. If the image is a graph or chart, does it clearly support a major point? All charts and graphs in my argument will clearly support the major points. They will be the majority of the supporting evidence towards persuading readers of the benefits of geoengineering.

5. Is the image in close proximity to the argument? My image would be in close relation to my argument and more importantly, the subject of controversy. It will be in support of the topic and will help convince readers that it is beneficial.

6. If the visual image is used as part of a video, does the pairing information clearly connect? No matter the image or visual I use, it will be selected if it has beneficial qualities to aiding in my argument. If I could find an excellent source of a video covering my argument, then I will decide on whether to include it or not.


Creating Visual Organization pg 401

1. Scanning the outline, do your eyes move easily from section to section as intended? Looking at my outline, it is easy to tell which section will go to what section. The flow is smooth and everything is intended to work out this way.

2. If you are using design elements, do they create clear transitions from each major point? I will most likely not be using design elements in my public argument.

3. If you are writing a multimodal argument, do the visual images help the transitions? My writings will be sectioned into different branches of geoengineering. Visual elements will be provided for each branch to help support from all angles.

4. If your project contains large blocks of text, could they be broken up using text boxes? In this case, text boxes would be an efficient methods of separating large bodies of text. Especially since my argument revolves around multiple processes of geoengineering, boxing topics would be a good way to distinguish them.

5. Do too many visual images make your text busy or disorganized? My argument revolves around the support of visual aids. I would like to say that there is no amount of images that would hinder the overall goal of the argument I am trying to make.


Creating Visual Impact pg 402

1. Do the different visual and textual elements come together persuasively as a whole? My text will be informational about the issue and also be collaborative with the visual elements I am going to provide. The text will explain the support I am presenting with the use of those visuals.

2. Looking back at your outline, is the visual-rhetorical tone consistent? Looking back at my outline has me reassuring my confidence that the tone is indeed consistent throughout. My argument will undoubtedly need to be revised after the first draft, but at least I know that its fluidity will remain constant.

3. If you are calling your audience to take action, is this call specifically developed? The evidence I am presenting to my audience is for them to be persuaded into believing that geoengineering is truly beneficial to the planet. In by doing so, the call to my audience needs to be elaborately thought out before making my argument.

4. If you are calling your audience to take action, are the consequences and benefits expressed? In my argument, I will express the benefits mainly but also give a few consequences. These "consequences" however will only point against the readers' negligence if he or she decides not to support geoengineering.

5. Looking back at your images, are they placed or sequenced in the most persuasive way? I will format my images in the most persuasive way possible. I will embed images within my text as the explanations go by and the evidence of support is needed to keep the convincing tone of the argument alive.

Project III Outline

In this post I will start to construct my public argument by drawing out an outline. The Writing Public Lives text gives areas to focus on while constructing a public argument. First I will select a format for my introduction, then I will give explanations to 6 statements with regards to the body of my argument. Third and lastly, I will again choose a format I would like to end my argument with and explain why my selection is best for my context.

ClkerFreeVectorImages. "Fish Funny Faces Sunglasses Outline." 04/09/2012 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.
Introducing Your Public Argument

Think About Your Situation or Kairos - From the text, I can draw from other current events related to geoengineering. This includes what I have previously posted about -- fracking and solar radiation management. I can possibly lead my audience to want to discuss the issues that are ongoing. I may even include any recent news about the legislation on geoengineering, whether it be restrictions or bans. Through all of this, I am aiming to lead my audience to either take action or to think about the issue in a different perspective, which in turn, then leads them to take action.

Developing Strong Supporting Paragraphs

1. List Down the Major Supporting Arguments - This may include arguments made by climate scientist David Keith. His support of solar radiation management has sparked controversy. His opinions, views, and facts that he has found are all credible. Other people with similar views will be effective in supporting my argument.

2. List Down Major Criticisms - Some people may find an expert's statements unreliable and not credible. This mainly due to these people's opposing views. If a person does not think geoengineering as beneficial, then he or she would obviously abject from any notion of the methods employed as being beneficial.

3. Select Your Key Support and Rebuttal Points - My key support will be David Keith's interview with The Washington Post's Brad Plumer. Other sources will be anything similar to such an article that Plumer wrote. Not necessarily being an interview, but anything that is in support of geoengineering the environment. Rebuttal points may include anything that ay seem or can be disproven on my part. If I can use supporting evidence to discourage an opposing view, then I will use it in my argument.

4. Write Out a Tentative Topic Sentence for Each Support and Rebuttal Point - The Washington Post's Brad Plumer interviews reputable climate scientist, David Keith, to fully understand his supporting views on why and how geoengineering has already and will continue to benefit the environment and the people on planet Earth.

5. Gather Evidence - My evidence and supporting facts and data will mainly come from the interview with David Keith. Other sources will include studies done using methods of geoengineering and the benefits that have been found. Others may also include interviews with other supporting experts, articles written by reputable authors known to support geoengineering, and/or anyone with evidence to suggest that engineering the planet is a viable option to solving environmental problems.

6. Develop a Map of Your Argument 


Here is the link to the Coggle I made with regards to my argument.


Concluding Strategies

Positive Consequences - For my argument, ending by restating and summarizing the positive outcomes that geoengineering will have or already have is the best way to give my audience some closer before taking action. My conclusion will still be very persuasive and thus giving inference for my audience to act, but the main goal behind finishing with the positives is to let my readers think about what geoengineering can do for the planet and more importantly, do for themselves.


In Reflection, I reviewed Alyssa's outline as well as Isabel's outline. They both have very different approaches from each other and to myself also. We all go through different loops to get to the goal of trying to persuade our audiences to believe in a certain topic. Alyssa's idea of making a documentary fascinates me and I am very interested in seeing the final product. Isabel's use of her personal experiences with her topic will be the best information she could possible include in her argument as it is the most detailed and most vivid information she can probably find. With that in her argument, I have no doubt many will be moved by her story and want to believe in the cause that Isabel does.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Analyzing My Genre

Similar to my previous posts, Analyzing Purpose and Analyzing Context, this post will focus in on the details of my genre. In this post, I will provide five examples from a source I have stated below that all have the same structural genre format but that are obviously covering different topics. I will also answer questions from Writing Public Lives page 342.

Bernard Goldbach. "SciFi Genre Pollution." 11/19/2011 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Five Examples from The Atlantic [www.theatlantic.com]

The Nerve Gas Controversy
The Case Against Perfection
The Ugly Truth About Horse Racing
Dads Caring for Their Kids: It's Parenting, Not Babysitting
Could Human Enhancement Turn Soldiers Into Weapons That Violate International Law? Yes


Social Context

  • Where is the genre typically set? It is typically set in way that informs readers that the topic is under debate. In an article of this kind of genre, the author will most likely be in support of or in opposition against a certain stand. The author will try to persuade the audience that his or her views should be understood and followed.
  • What is the subject of the genre? The subject of this genre is an evaluative argument This means that the argument will be in support of the topic or subject. Such is the case for my upcoming public argument, I will be writing in support of geoengineering and its branching methods.
  • Who uses the genre? People who use this genre are from a wide variety of places. They are more so from a source that caters to a specific population, especially political parties. Authors of neutral sources would not often write about their subjects in an argument-based format. 
  • When and why is the genre used? What purposes does the genre serve? This genre is used when a population wants the views of a population from a specific side of an argument. When the author constructs his argument he or she will draw from the views of people with similar opinions. This helps the author create a piece that will serve as a summarizing argument for this side of a debate.

Rhetorical Patterns of the Genre
  • What type of content is usually included and excluded? This genre includes the information needed for audiences to fully understand the topic. This includes the data and statistics, the expert opinions and facts, as well as the background of the issue that the genre is covering. Stuff that is excluded is the biased nonsense that people comment and voice their opinions on. The rhetoric is not useful in this genre. 
  • What rhetorical appeals are used most often? This genre uses the appeals of ethos and logos primarily. Not much pathos is included as the genre does not want to necessarily appeal to the emotions and feelings of an audience. The statistics is categorized as logos and the expert opinions and facts are labeled as ethos.
  • How are the texts organized? These texts are organized as to first introduce the issue and then explain the issue to persons unaware, thus educating readers on the topic. After giving plenty of background, the text delves into the controversial aspects and gives the supporting evidence to why this is the case. The ending is a resolution that ties everything together and gives the audience a reason to want to take action and to also support the cause.
  • Do sentences in the genre share a certain style? The sentences do share a certain style. They are structured towards supporting the subject of controversy. The main goal of the article is to persuade readers that the subject is beneficial and should be supported. In by doing this, sentences and paragraphs need to be structured in a way that convinces readers.
  • What type of word choice is used? Formal word choice and persuasive word choice is key in this genre to complete the goal of convincing a population. As the goal is to persuade readers that the subject is beneficial, certain wording and context is imperative to completing this goal.

Analyze What Those Patterns Reveal About The Social Context Of The Genre
  • Who does the genre include and who does it exclude? This genre includes the opinions and views of experts that are related to supporting the subject causing debate. People against the topic are not included unless there is information included stating that the person's views are non-credible.
  • What roles for writers and readers does the genre encourage? The genre encourages writers to delve deeper into an issue to uncover what people want to hear to get them to say that the subject is in fact beneficial towards a cause. Readers in this genre are called into action by the persuasive style of wording and paper formatting.
  • What values and beliefs are assumed about or encouraged from users of the genre? Users of this genre, which I assume means authors, hold the values of the goal of the paper. The genre of this kind of argument is going to be in support of the subject under debate. Users want to persuade their readers that this is true for the most part. 
  • What content does the genre treat as most valuable? Least valuable? This genre treats any supporting data, statistics or graphs as very useful for making an argument. Any expert opinions that are in support of the issue is also helpful and valuable. On the other hand, opinions of other sources in opposition are not valuable, unless there is evidence to prove that the source is wrong or faulty. 

In Reflection, I viewed Savannah's post and Dylan's post with the title, Analyzing My Genre. Savannah's genre is similar to mine; we both have goals of persuading our audiences with the use of data, statistics and graphs. She must get her readers to think that GMOs are in fact a safe and reliable source of food products. With that data present in her argument, it should turn out very convincing. As the same for Dylan's argument if he includes multiple photographs showing the differences between digital and film movie making. He has stated he would and I agree that if he does, that would be the key element in his argument towards persuading his audience.