Wednesday, August 12, 2015
A Letter to My Peers
To my Peers,
Through this class we have learned a great deal of things from analyzing controversies in our field, analyzing rhetoric from those who are regarded as the best in our field, and even learned how to structure an argument based on a debate in our respective fields. For only being a month long class we have sure done a lot and like everything in this world, it must come to an end. As we have done a seemingly extensive amount of reflection in this class, I begin to take a good hard look at my relationship with writing over the past couple of years and look at where I succeeded and where I failed.
For the longest time writing has been a challenge for me. I hated it and I still don’t like it to this day. This kind of attitude has always stemmed from my irritation with it. After so many years of just plain hating writing I learned how to write successfully due to a lot of experiences. This change started my senior year in AP Literature when my comprehension of writing was tested constantly. The class was tough and the type of writing asked of us was above and beyond what I expected. To make it worse, I was not doing well on my papers. I could not write successfully until I began to get a better understanding how I write. I am not the most methodical writer in the world, but when I got down to reading and understanding how others were doing well I began to get writing down to a formula. The ability to analyze literature and the other skills I learned in that class prepared me for college writing.
However, as college came around, I became a bit lazy with my class work and my procrastination became worse. In one of my general education classes in my first semester I had to write an analysis. I didn't really read the book so I looked at a summary of the book and took some key elements and wrote a paper on it and I got an A. This style of writing may sometimes work against me, but as I have learned and reinforced in this class, my writing style works for me and it will for the next couple of years. Since that class, I have began to look at my writing and realized that if I put effort into whatever I am writing I can actually do pretty well. In the foreseeable future I will probably procrastinate on most of my papers but I have to learn to not follow this writing process and evolve my writing even more so I can be successful. In terms of how I felt about this class, I don’t think I would ever want to do it online again. This subject has to be more personal to me. Even though peer review helped a lot, I think it would work better in a classroom setting, which I am excited to get back to in about a week and a half.
Like many of the papers I had to write in this class there will be more ahead. The papers I have written in this class have freshened my style of writing and will allow me to be more confident in my writing and my writing process. It was a pleasure to be in this class with such wonderful people and I wish you all the best.
Best Regards,
Adam Karsten
Reflection on Open Letter Draft
The two drafts I reviewed were Helen's and Brittany's
1. My peers and my instructor are my audience for this letter I have written.
2. My readers may have bias based on recent papers I have written because they already know what to expect from me in terms of writing style.
3. I think that both my peers and instructors have high expectations for me due to the quality of writing I have been putting out. I feel as though this class expects quality form the students and I want to meet those expectations.
4. For this paper I think that I should give some background history on what I did in high school in terms of writing and how I did in my first year of college. This kind of background knowledge can benefit them and I don't think it will insult them cause most of my readers don't know too much about me.
5. The language shouldn't be too overly complicated because I am writing a letter to my peers so they should not have to struggle to read what I have written. The language should be simple and friendly.
6. The assignment states that we should be writing in a semi-formal tone so that is what I will use in my letter. I don't think I am at that tone in my paper yet but through a little bit of revision I can fix that.
1. My peers and my instructor are my audience for this letter I have written.
2. My readers may have bias based on recent papers I have written because they already know what to expect from me in terms of writing style.
3. I think that both my peers and instructors have high expectations for me due to the quality of writing I have been putting out. I feel as though this class expects quality form the students and I want to meet those expectations.
4. For this paper I think that I should give some background history on what I did in high school in terms of writing and how I did in my first year of college. This kind of background knowledge can benefit them and I don't think it will insult them cause most of my readers don't know too much about me.
5. The language shouldn't be too overly complicated because I am writing a letter to my peers so they should not have to struggle to read what I have written. The language should be simple and friendly.
6. The assignment states that we should be writing in a semi-formal tone so that is what I will use in my letter. I don't think I am at that tone in my paper yet but through a little bit of revision I can fix that.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Draft of Open Letter
I mostly want my peer reviewers to look at my grammatical issues and sentence fluency. I don't think there are many other things to look at so here is my draft.
Reflection on Project 3
1. I mainly looked at grammatical errors and sentence fluency because I felt like my content was sound so I didn't want to change that at all. Mostly what changed was how it sounded and I think it was a better paper after revising.
2. I didn't look at any organization because I felt as though it was organized well. I didn't do anything with my thesis either because I felt as though it was well done.
3.The changes I made were mostly style based in that I wanted to look at what could sound better and how I can get the attention of the audience. There wasn't a change in purpose or audience change I mostly just fine tuned an already good paper.
4. The changes I made don't really affect my credibility.
5. The changes address the audience better because the reader is able to read the piece much easier.
6. Like I said before I looked at sentence structure and style a lot so I can make my paper more crisp and overall better.
7. The changes will allow the audience to get more involved in the paper and if the paper is good the purpose will get through to the audience which is what I wanted to do.
8. Yes I did have to consider the conventions because of the genre I was writing because the I have to try and persuade a reader to believe my opinion and side with my stance.
9. This process allows me to see what I did right and wrong and ultimately grow as a writer.
2. I didn't look at any organization because I felt as though it was organized well. I didn't do anything with my thesis either because I felt as though it was well done.
3.The changes I made were mostly style based in that I wanted to look at what could sound better and how I can get the attention of the audience. There wasn't a change in purpose or audience change I mostly just fine tuned an already good paper.
4. The changes I made don't really affect my credibility.
5. The changes address the audience better because the reader is able to read the piece much easier.
6. Like I said before I looked at sentence structure and style a lot so I can make my paper more crisp and overall better.
7. The changes will allow the audience to get more involved in the paper and if the paper is good the purpose will get through to the audience which is what I wanted to do.
8. Yes I did have to consider the conventions because of the genre I was writing because the I have to try and persuade a reader to believe my opinion and side with my stance.
9. This process allows me to see what I did right and wrong and ultimately grow as a writer.
A Case for Stem Cells
A Case For Stem Cells
Written by Adam Karsten
Throughout history humanity's thirst for knowledge and natural curiosity has led to many technological advancements. From the creation of the automobile, to putting a man on the moon, we do not see limits to what we can discover and create. Though sometimes we may be hesitant to change, we eventually embrace the technology that can progress our species. So as we look towards the future, a bit of medical advancement called stem cells has led the way for the future of medicine. In 2015, the question still remains: Why are we not funding this?
Discovered in 1981 in mice embryos, stem cells have been seen as a revolutionary treatment option for a variety of diseases (NIH). In 2015 the controversy behind stem cells has slowly but surely begun to fade away as researchers have begun to find different ways of acquiring stem cells. This was in response to the ethical concerns of embryos being used to extract stem cells. But now scientists have discovered that there are different ways of getting stem cells. One type of stem cell is called an induced pluripotent stem cell (NIH). This stem cell comes from an adult stem cell being reprogrammed to act like a stem cell (NIH). Induced pluripotent stem cells are being used worldwide for research purposes to help cure diseases like Diabetes and Alzheimer's. But what happens when a type of research that has been seen as unethical for so many years suddenly has an alternative source? Well, a new wave of “stem cell banks” have been created and this allows the storage of stem cells for treatment. So with all this in mind the government of the United States still hasn’t given more money to this kind of research. The Obama Administration signed a bill in 2008 that allowed more funding for stem cell labs, but there hasn’t been that much change in recent years (Utah). While they are making progress, what needs to happen in the near future is that stem cells should be used to help in the research of0 almost every disease and become a primary treatment option. The facts show that they do help treat diseases like Diabetes and that in most cases they successfully cure the ailment. For these reasons alone the people of the United States need to pay more attention to stem cell research and support it where it is applicable. We need to follow suit with other countries in the world like India where there is a federal stem cell bank and allow the use of stem cells for bone marrow transplants (Pew). They do have a ban on cloning like every other country, but India does heavily support stem cells. Other countries have very similar laws that support the use of stem cells but in the U.S. they are only used for research and have not undergone many clinical tests. This is something that needs to change in order to create a better future for humanity as a whole.
If stem cell research is more heavily funded, stem cells will become the next penicillin of medicine. The more popular stem cells become, the more healthy humans become. Leading to longer lifespans. This could be the future if we just ban together and pledge support to helping the research of stem cells because they can help save lives.
Works Cited
."Stem Cell Research Around the World." Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 16 July 2008. Web. 05 Aug. 2015.
Revisiting My Writing Process
In my first post I said that I was a mixture of a heavy planner and a procrastinator. This is still true mow because throughout this course I have procrastinated many times and in my writing it can sometimes be seen. But when it comes to the main projects I do tend to plan out my writing and it has helped my writing. So far it has worked out quite well but later in my life it will become more and more taxing to keep writing like this. I will get bigger assignments and it won't cut it if I write my paper in one night. So in the future I will slowly need to mold my process as the workload increases so I can still do well.
Reflecting on My Writing Experiences
- Before taking this class I looked at writing as something that had to be done and it was boring but needed. I love reading but writing is boring and I never liked it.
- The most important lesson I have learned is to pace homework because it is really difficult to do in one sitting.
- I didn't really brainstorm to much, instead I just wrote the first thing that came to mind that sounded plausible then fine tuned the original piece.
- The peer review process allowed me to give and receive quality feedback and it allowed me to in turn to look at other peoples work and possible take strategies from what they wrote and use it in my own work.
- We didn't have any conferences
- I didn't have any discussions outside of class.
- I approached each revision by reading it out loud and fixing any funky sounding sentences then I read it again to look for grammar errors.
- I have learned to write better in certain genres than before this class and I think it has broaden my scope in writing.
- I would be more diligent in my work in the class and I would try to fine tune my papers more.
- College writing will now be with me forever and I will use in all of my classes from now on.
- I learned a lot from the first assignment mostly because of what I was writing about which was about pathogens and I really enjoyed writing about it.
- There wasn't any experience that really reinforced anything.
- There wasn't any project that I didn't get anything out of. Each project helped me improve as a writer.
- I met the course objectives and I'm not working on any more course objectives.
Punctuation Part 2
1. The comma:
The comma is a type of punctuation that I use quite often and for me the rules are not to hard to grasp. The chapter goes to great lengths to make sure that the reader understands how to use a comma correctly. There wasn't any new information that peaked my interest and the book explained everything perfectly.
2. The apostrophe:
The apostrophe is used mainly to show possession and that's what I usually use it for. Also with contractions. What I didn't know was that you don't use the apostrophe for plurals of numbers, abbreviations and words mentioned as words. Other than that it is a pretty simple concept to understand.
3. Quotation Marks:
Quotation marks are used for a variety of things and have a very specific set of rules that can be broken very easily. One of the rules that I never quite understood was how to place punctuation in the sentences and the book helped me.
In revising my draft again I didn't really notice to many errors in punctuation. The three topics above were either not used, like the quotation marks, or used, like the comma. An example of a sentence from my paper using the comma would be "They do have a ban on cloning like every other country, but India does heavily support stem cells.". All in all I learned more about how well I use these types of punctuation and it helps me understand what works for me as a writer.
The comma is a type of punctuation that I use quite often and for me the rules are not to hard to grasp. The chapter goes to great lengths to make sure that the reader understands how to use a comma correctly. There wasn't any new information that peaked my interest and the book explained everything perfectly.
2. The apostrophe:
The apostrophe is used mainly to show possession and that's what I usually use it for. Also with contractions. What I didn't know was that you don't use the apostrophe for plurals of numbers, abbreviations and words mentioned as words. Other than that it is a pretty simple concept to understand.
3. Quotation Marks:
Quotation marks are used for a variety of things and have a very specific set of rules that can be broken very easily. One of the rules that I never quite understood was how to place punctuation in the sentences and the book helped me.
In revising my draft again I didn't really notice to many errors in punctuation. The three topics above were either not used, like the quotation marks, or used, like the comma. An example of a sentence from my paper using the comma would be "They do have a ban on cloning like every other country, but India does heavily support stem cells.". All in all I learned more about how well I use these types of punctuation and it helps me understand what works for me as a writer.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Reflection on Project 3 Draft
Drafts I reviewed: Jake Glatting and Brittany Newland
1. The purpose of my original paper was to try and get the audience, government officials and the public, to try and pass legislation to increase federal funding for stem cell research. I was able to reach the audience by asking for action specifically to the officials who can make a change to do it. I did this by explaining the benefits of stem cells and why they aren't so much a controversy anymore so they should be brought to light as a revolutionary medical treatment that can help humanity.
2.I am revising this paper to clean up any punctuation errors or sentence fragments to make a pristine piece that follows the prompt and that calls attention to the point I am making. Revising is important because if I turn in the paper I have now it would be a broken piece that makes some sense but is dampened by the many grammatical errors.
3. I am revising for my audience to clearly understand the article I am writing. I need to revise in order to make sure I am addressing them properly and that I am get my purpose across.
4. Length- I think I am going to increase the length slightly so I can add more information.
Format- I am going to do an opinion for a newspaper
Appearance- It will look a bit more professional
Use of Evidence- I think I use enough evidence in this piece
Intro and Conclusion- Both are done well so I won't change too much other than wording.
Structure of your Argument- There isn't much I want to change with this.
Depth of your Argument- This I want to change to include more data and information to support my argument and make it more sturdy.
1. The purpose of my original paper was to try and get the audience, government officials and the public, to try and pass legislation to increase federal funding for stem cell research. I was able to reach the audience by asking for action specifically to the officials who can make a change to do it. I did this by explaining the benefits of stem cells and why they aren't so much a controversy anymore so they should be brought to light as a revolutionary medical treatment that can help humanity.
2.I am revising this paper to clean up any punctuation errors or sentence fragments to make a pristine piece that follows the prompt and that calls attention to the point I am making. Revising is important because if I turn in the paper I have now it would be a broken piece that makes some sense but is dampened by the many grammatical errors.
3. I am revising for my audience to clearly understand the article I am writing. I need to revise in order to make sure I am addressing them properly and that I am get my purpose across.
4. Length- I think I am going to increase the length slightly so I can add more information.
Format- I am going to do an opinion for a newspaper
Appearance- It will look a bit more professional
Use of Evidence- I think I use enough evidence in this piece
Intro and Conclusion- Both are done well so I won't change too much other than wording.
Structure of your Argument- There isn't much I want to change with this.
Depth of your Argument- This I want to change to include more data and information to support my argument and make it more sturdy.
Punctuation, Part 1
The Semicolon
I never truly understood how semicolons really worked. I knew the basics of how they are supposed to transition two independent clause , but I never really used them. The rules just seemed too complicated for me to use properly. I knew it could add some sentence variety to my papers but I didn't want to use it incorrectly so I avoid them as much as possible. One interesting that I read is how you can pace semicolons in a series containing internal punctuation. That is significant to my writing because it could make parts of my writing much easier to understand. All in all I understand much more about semicolons and feel a bit more confident using them.
The colon
Unlike the semicolon, I understand how to use a colon properly. However, I never really use it to start lists because I don't think it is necessary most of the time. The only time I really use colons is for large lists that are necessary because in that situation the list is large enough that you need to show where it begins. I thought there would be more uses for the colon but there only used for two things but its a punctuation rule that is there.
Brackets
I have never used brackets in my writing because I never understood how to use them. I would usually just get around the problem wit quotes sounding off by avoiding those quotes entirely. Now in reading this section I learned how to use them properly. Surely this type of punctuation will help my writing significantly.
Reflection:
I learned more about semi colons in Jake's paper because he successfully used them in this sentence "Whether the struggle involves making new friends, keeping old ones, or having the courage to go ask out that pretty girl across the room that you know is way out of your league; robots can help you to gain confidence, make a new friend, and learn how to interact in all of those situations that you never thought you could" . In this sentence he uses the semi colon to correctly separate to differentiate ideas successfully and in reading this it helped me fell more confident about using semicolons.
I never truly understood how semicolons really worked. I knew the basics of how they are supposed to transition two independent clause , but I never really used them. The rules just seemed too complicated for me to use properly. I knew it could add some sentence variety to my papers but I didn't want to use it incorrectly so I avoid them as much as possible. One interesting that I read is how you can pace semicolons in a series containing internal punctuation. That is significant to my writing because it could make parts of my writing much easier to understand. All in all I understand much more about semicolons and feel a bit more confident using them.
The colon
Unlike the semicolon, I understand how to use a colon properly. However, I never really use it to start lists because I don't think it is necessary most of the time. The only time I really use colons is for large lists that are necessary because in that situation the list is large enough that you need to show where it begins. I thought there would be more uses for the colon but there only used for two things but its a punctuation rule that is there.
Brackets
I have never used brackets in my writing because I never understood how to use them. I would usually just get around the problem wit quotes sounding off by avoiding those quotes entirely. Now in reading this section I learned how to use them properly. Surely this type of punctuation will help my writing significantly.
Reflection:
I learned more about semi colons in Jake's paper because he successfully used them in this sentence "Whether the struggle involves making new friends, keeping old ones, or having the courage to go ask out that pretty girl across the room that you know is way out of your league; robots can help you to gain confidence, make a new friend, and learn how to interact in all of those situations that you never thought you could" . In this sentence he uses the semi colon to correctly separate to differentiate ideas successfully and in reading this it helped me fell more confident about using semicolons.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Draft of Public Argument
For this assignment I would like my peer reviewers to look at the genre I am writing to see if the structure and sentence flow match it. Also I would like to know if my point does get across and meet the expectations of this assignment. Again it would be helpful if you could look at grammar flow and comment on any needed changes. Thank you very much.
My Draft
https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1sDPNtEEi-nJH5W1hBZbhSsf8s8ZgI2oumwnzx72mJKE/edit?usp=sharing
My Draft
https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1sDPNtEEi-nJH5W1hBZbhSsf8s8ZgI2oumwnzx72mJKE/edit?usp=sharing
Outlining My Public Argument
Introducing.....
The best introduction for me to use would be to define and narrow the problem. The reason I want to go with this kind of introduction is that I want to explain the issue of stem cells and what I believe is something that not everyone will understand. I want to explain what the point is I want to get through and what it means to the issue. The introduction is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the paper, so I want to start the piece of by explaining all the factors above.
Developing Strong....
1.List the Major supporting arguments: The major supporting arguments for my case to increase stem cell research is that it is a proven treatment for a variety of diseases, there are alternatives to what is deemed unethical, and finally it is a major advancement in medical science.
2. The major criticisms to this argument is that stem cell research is expensive, some people still believe it is unethical, and that there is no way to meet the demand for stem cells.
3.Select your Key support and Rebuttal points: The most important support points is the different types of reports that show the results of treatment to diseases like Diabetes and Alzheimer's. The rebuttal points that are important is to try and show how stem cells can be used for the common person which is a problem that can be solved n a way like blood donor. This will make a lot more sense when I explain it because it is a complex idea that can't be formulated in a few sentences.
4. The funding of stem cell research needs to be increased to allow the further research into how stem cells can be acquired effectively to allow the many diseases that plague humanity to be available.
5. Gather Evidence: The main evidence that I will use regards the results of treatments from a variety of reports and a major piece of information that questions whether tem cell is controversial anymore. This last bit is important because if this is true to some extent it makes the argument I am making easier and much more streamlined.
6. Map your Argument: My argument stems around the idea that this is important to those ho may benefit from it an I will address the issues wit stem cell research and tell the audience how this can be fixed or dampened them directly.
Concluding Strategies.....
I will have to probably use positive consequences because it makes the most sense to conclude by telling the reader what the result of the actions taken after reading this. The consequences are a great outlook for the human race and the world so I feel this is the best way to go.
The best introduction for me to use would be to define and narrow the problem. The reason I want to go with this kind of introduction is that I want to explain the issue of stem cells and what I believe is something that not everyone will understand. I want to explain what the point is I want to get through and what it means to the issue. The introduction is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the paper, so I want to start the piece of by explaining all the factors above.
Developing Strong....
1.List the Major supporting arguments: The major supporting arguments for my case to increase stem cell research is that it is a proven treatment for a variety of diseases, there are alternatives to what is deemed unethical, and finally it is a major advancement in medical science.
2. The major criticisms to this argument is that stem cell research is expensive, some people still believe it is unethical, and that there is no way to meet the demand for stem cells.
3.Select your Key support and Rebuttal points: The most important support points is the different types of reports that show the results of treatment to diseases like Diabetes and Alzheimer's. The rebuttal points that are important is to try and show how stem cells can be used for the common person which is a problem that can be solved n a way like blood donor. This will make a lot more sense when I explain it because it is a complex idea that can't be formulated in a few sentences.
4. The funding of stem cell research needs to be increased to allow the further research into how stem cells can be acquired effectively to allow the many diseases that plague humanity to be available.
5. Gather Evidence: The main evidence that I will use regards the results of treatments from a variety of reports and a major piece of information that questions whether tem cell is controversial anymore. This last bit is important because if this is true to some extent it makes the argument I am making easier and much more streamlined.
6. Map your Argument: My argument stems around the idea that this is important to those ho may benefit from it an I will address the issues wit stem cell research and tell the audience how this can be fixed or dampened them directly.
Concluding Strategies.....
I will have to probably use positive consequences because it makes the most sense to conclude by telling the reader what the result of the actions taken after reading this. The consequences are a great outlook for the human race and the world so I feel this is the best way to go.
Paraphrasing a Source
Original Source
"Stem cells are cells that have the ability to differentiate into one or more of the types of cells of an organism’s body, as well as the ability to self-renew, creating more stem cells like themselves. “Adult” stem cells — which are found not only in adults but also in children, babies, and fetuses — are typically multipotent, meaning that they are capable of producing multiple (but not all) cell types.[6] Some adult stem cells have been used in medical therapies for decades. For example, bone marrow transplantation has been used to treat patients since the 1950s, years before scientists understood that it was specifically the presence of blood-forming adult stem cells in the marrow that made the treatment work.[7]" -The Stem Cell Debates
My Paraphrase
With the capacity to distinguish different types of cells in an organisms body, stem cells are able to self-renew allowing more stem cells to be created. "Adult" stem cell are usually multipotent, which means that they are able to create different cell types. "Adult" stem cells are also found in children. The bone marrow transplantation treatment, which has been used since the 1950s, uses adult stem cells. Scientists did not discovered this fact however till later on when stem cells were truly understood.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Considering Types
For me the best kind of argument would be position because it allows me to make a strong case or what I believe in. It allows the ability to create "a specific policy" to show why I fell stem cell research should be funded more (414). If I have enough support to back my cause then the naysayers can't tell me I'm wrong and they may change their minds based on my position. The argument that would be the most ineffective however would be casual because there is no "phenomenon" of stem cells anymore because they are becoming more and more common. Ten to Fifteen years ago this argument would have worked wonders because stem cells were a new thing and the things they could do were incredibly but now it is a different story.
Rhetorical Action Plan
1. The people who I am going to try and persuade are the politicians who have the ability to make a change in funding for stem cell research and those who are against stem cell research for moral reasons. The audience is knowledgeable on the subject because stem cells are more widely known today and if the person is against stem cells they most likely know what they do, or at least that is the hope. The values of the audience will vary but they will most likely follow their beliefs unless they are very persuaded to change their minds. The results of how stem cells have advanced medicine will be my best bet for showing the benefits of stem cells as well as showing the alternatives to embryotic stem cells that have been discovered. I will make it simple to understand and use the simplified data to help support my position. There are no visual elements needed for this type of argument. The purpose of this piece is to try and persuade the readers to support more federal funding for stem cell research and to not try and hinder the progress already made.
2. The genre I plan to use is to state my position on stem ell research give the reasons why I support it and why more people should then explain why the other side is not only wrong but is in turn harming the advancement of medicine. It is a rebuttal to the ethics of the research being frowned upon and I can show that there are humane ways of getting stem cells now that are more difficult but humane. The genre I am using would be used in the setting of a response to a opinion that you disagree with or a counter argument. I am going to try and use logos and ethos to help strengthen my rhetoric. This will be a formal piece that is organized professionally and has clear and concise writing. It would be as though I was writing in front of congress to show why they should support stem cell research.
3.The main actions I want my audience to take is to help raise awareness so that the government can take notice. If they notice what there constituents want, they will respond by supporting stem cell research and give it more funding.
2. The genre I plan to use is to state my position on stem ell research give the reasons why I support it and why more people should then explain why the other side is not only wrong but is in turn harming the advancement of medicine. It is a rebuttal to the ethics of the research being frowned upon and I can show that there are humane ways of getting stem cells now that are more difficult but humane. The genre I am using would be used in the setting of a response to a opinion that you disagree with or a counter argument. I am going to try and use logos and ethos to help strengthen my rhetoric. This will be a formal piece that is organized professionally and has clear and concise writing. It would be as though I was writing in front of congress to show why they should support stem cell research.
3.The main actions I want my audience to take is to help raise awareness so that the government can take notice. If they notice what there constituents want, they will respond by supporting stem cell research and give it more funding.
Analyzing Context
1. The key perspectives of this debate is the side who supports the use of embryotic stem cells for research and those who don't support the use of ES cells for research.
2. The major points of disagreement all comes down to ethics. The side that supports the use of ES cells says that the research will help advance medicine. The other side however believes that the use of Embryos is inhumane therefore the research is unethical and inhumane.
3. Both sides agree that there is some use for stem cells. Mainly that there is a medical use for them but the way of obtaining them is still the most hotly debated point.
4. The ideological differences between these two sides is again the side who views the use of embryotic cells as inhumane and cruel while the side who supports ES cells sees them as a useful way to advance medical research.
5. The actions taken by both sides is mixed at best. The side who supports stem cells lobbies for increased funding while those against protest and fight against the use of embryos. Most actions taken have been done by recent presidential administrations like Bush in 2001 where he was against stem cells and in 2008 where Obama supported them.
6. The side that is most useful for me is the side that supports the stem cells because they have more support for their argument and it just makes more sense. The other side is mostly based on morals instead of facts. So I have to support the side that makes the most sense and can build the strongest argument.
7. The side that is against ES cells or those who don't see ES cells as marketable or useful are the strongest opponents. It is really difficult to dissuade people from there beliefs which is all that the other side has.
2. The major points of disagreement all comes down to ethics. The side that supports the use of ES cells says that the research will help advance medicine. The other side however believes that the use of Embryos is inhumane therefore the research is unethical and inhumane.
3. Both sides agree that there is some use for stem cells. Mainly that there is a medical use for them but the way of obtaining them is still the most hotly debated point.
4. The ideological differences between these two sides is again the side who views the use of embryotic cells as inhumane and cruel while the side who supports ES cells sees them as a useful way to advance medical research.
5. The actions taken by both sides is mixed at best. The side who supports stem cells lobbies for increased funding while those against protest and fight against the use of embryos. Most actions taken have been done by recent presidential administrations like Bush in 2001 where he was against stem cells and in 2008 where Obama supported them.
6. The side that is most useful for me is the side that supports the stem cells because they have more support for their argument and it just makes more sense. The other side is mostly based on morals instead of facts. So I have to support the side that makes the most sense and can build the strongest argument.
7. The side that is against ES cells or those who don't see ES cells as marketable or useful are the strongest opponents. It is really difficult to dissuade people from there beliefs which is all that the other side has.
Analyzing Purpose
1. The main purpose of my public argument is to try and make a point that I firmly stand beside and attempt to convince those who read this to side with me. I want to try and make the reader create their own opinion from what I am telling them. It is important to want them to be convinced but ultimately there will always be one who just disagrees. All in all I want to make a strong argument for my side to try and convince those who disagree that my side is the right side.
2. Plausible Actions/Reactions Not Plausible
Agree with me Don't believe my argument
Look at a different side Completely disagree
then before Attack my Character
3. The best kind of action that can occur from this piece can be that the reader openly supports stem cell research and will look for it at the next election, raise awareness, or just spread the word. The public can take action that would help the advancement of stem cell research.
4. The biggest critics of stem cell research will want to see this piece and find that stem cell research is becoming a heavily supported cause that few people are opposing today. The type of audience I want to address are those who can make a big change. Specifically I want to try and influence politicians to try and increase federal funding. This will accelerate research and allow for major advancements in medicine. With this the public can also be a huge influence because they are able to elect politicians who support stem cells and if more people are pro stem cell research, more change can occur.
2. Plausible Actions/Reactions Not Plausible
Agree with me Don't believe my argument
Look at a different side Completely disagree
then before Attack my Character
3. The best kind of action that can occur from this piece can be that the reader openly supports stem cell research and will look for it at the next election, raise awareness, or just spread the word. The public can take action that would help the advancement of stem cell research.
4. The biggest critics of stem cell research will want to see this piece and find that stem cell research is becoming a heavily supported cause that few people are opposing today. The type of audience I want to address are those who can make a big change. Specifically I want to try and influence politicians to try and increase federal funding. This will accelerate research and allow for major advancements in medicine. With this the public can also be a huge influence because they are able to elect politicians who support stem cells and if more people are pro stem cell research, more change can occur.
extended Annotated Bibliography
1. "The Stem Cell Debate: Is It Over?" The Stem Cell Debate: Is It Over? University of Utah, 2015. Web. 05 Aug. 2015.
This article is written by the University of Utah and it gives insight to how stem cells work, when they began to be used for treatment and more. It helps resolve whether or not stem cells are still a major controversy while answering another question about alternate methods.
2."Stem Cell Research Around the World." Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 16 July 2008. Web. 05 Aug. 2015.
This is another significant article because it gives an insight to how the world views stem cells and what they are doing. While some countries look on stem cells favorably, others are more regulating of the research leading to less progress.
3."Frequently Asked Questions." Stem Cell Basics: Introduction [Stem Cell Information]. Nathional Institute of Health, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 Aug. 2015.
This site is run by the National institute of health and it gives some background as to the history of stem cells and how they work. Also it shows what diseases they can be used to treat like Diabetes. This site gives a good background to help get a basic understanding of stem cells.
4.Robertson, John A. "Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy." The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38.2 (2010): 191-203. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
This journal answers the big question of where this controversy began and why and gives me a broad look at the events that occurred to lead us to where we are today with stem cell research. The author gives a very well written journal that is easy to understand and use.
This article is written by the University of Utah and it gives insight to how stem cells work, when they began to be used for treatment and more. It helps resolve whether or not stem cells are still a major controversy while answering another question about alternate methods.
2."Stem Cell Research Around the World." Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 16 July 2008. Web. 05 Aug. 2015.
This is another significant article because it gives an insight to how the world views stem cells and what they are doing. While some countries look on stem cells favorably, others are more regulating of the research leading to less progress.
3."Frequently Asked Questions." Stem Cell Basics: Introduction [Stem Cell Information]. Nathional Institute of Health, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 Aug. 2015.
This site is run by the National institute of health and it gives some background as to the history of stem cells and how they work. Also it shows what diseases they can be used to treat like Diabetes. This site gives a good background to help get a basic understanding of stem cells.
4.Robertson, John A. "Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy." The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38.2 (2010): 191-203. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
This journal answers the big question of where this controversy began and why and gives me a broad look at the events that occurred to lead us to where we are today with stem cell research. The author gives a very well written journal that is easy to understand and use.
Narrowing my Focus
What is the debate going on right now?
I think this question is something that should be addressed first because stem cells have been an ongoing debate for years and I really what to see what is going on currently in legislation and the public opinion of stem cell research. I think it is a good starting point.
When did stem cell research become a public issue?
I think this is an important question because like the question before it gives me a starting point to where it all became a controversy and will allow me some insight into the beginning.
Where does most stem cell research occur?
I feel as though this question can provide a look into if this is merely a stateside controversy or an international problem. I also want to see which governments are supporting this research the most because it could help back up some arguments I have for stem cell research.
I think this question is something that should be addressed first because stem cells have been an ongoing debate for years and I really what to see what is going on currently in legislation and the public opinion of stem cell research. I think it is a good starting point.
When did stem cell research become a public issue?
I think this is an important question because like the question before it gives me a starting point to where it all became a controversy and will allow me some insight into the beginning.
Where does most stem cell research occur?
I feel as though this question can provide a look into if this is merely a stateside controversy or an international problem. I also want to see which governments are supporting this research the most because it could help back up some arguments I have for stem cell research.
Questions about Controversy
WHO:
Who is involved?
Who are the main figures?
Who is the main figure for stem cell research?
Who is the main critic of stem cell research?
Who is major nations involved?
WHAT:
What is the main issue today?
What is the problem with stem cell research?
What is the debate going on right now?
What does the future look like?
What has been looked at as an alternative?
WHEN:
When did this controversy begin?
When were stem cells discovered?
When did stem cell research become a public issue?
When will this controversy end?
When did embryotic stem cells become necessary?
WHERE:
Where did stem cells originate?
Where is the center of the controversy?
Where is the research taking place?
Where does most stem cell research occur?
Where did the controversy begin?
HOW:
How are stem cells still a controversy?
How have we not found an alternative source?
How have those against this research not seen the benefit?
How far can we go with this research?
How long till we can accept stem cell research?
Who is involved?
Who are the main figures?
Who is the main figure for stem cell research?
Who is the main critic of stem cell research?
Who is major nations involved?
WHAT:
What is the main issue today?
What is the problem with stem cell research?
What is the debate going on right now?
What does the future look like?
What has been looked at as an alternative?
WHEN:
When did this controversy begin?
When were stem cells discovered?
When did stem cell research become a public issue?
When will this controversy end?
When did embryotic stem cells become necessary?
WHERE:
Where did stem cells originate?
Where is the center of the controversy?
Where is the research taking place?
Where does most stem cell research occur?
Where did the controversy begin?
HOW:
How are stem cells still a controversy?
How have we not found an alternative source?
How have those against this research not seen the benefit?
How far can we go with this research?
How long till we can accept stem cell research?
Reflection on Project 2
What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
Not much was changed for me personally in terms of content because I felt that my analysis was sound and supported so I mostly looked at grammatical errors. Another thing I revised pretty heavily was the way my sentences flowed so that it would contain less run-ons and deliver an smooth reading.
How did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
I looked over my thesis and realized that there wasn't much that I could do to improve what I had. My organization needed to be fixed a little bit in certain places but all in all my thoughts are presented in a clear and concise manner.
What lead you to these changes? A reconsideration of audiences? A shift in purpose?
I made the changes that I talked about above because I began to go against my analysis halfway through a paragraph so I had to fix it. That was the only real organizational fix I needed.
How will these changes affect your credibility as an author?
Well it made me more credible because I wasn't contradicting myself anymore. This improved what would of been a really messy paper that questioned bot my analysis and credibility.
How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
Nothing really changes the audience or venue the changes mostly effect the credibility of me as an author.
How do you reconsider sentence structure and style?
The biggest thing to reconsider is if the sentence sounds right. Its basic and simple and it take care of broken statements and it can tell the author if their writing is smooth and not choppy. Also a big thing to look at is to see if there are a variety of sentence types because it helps make the writing flow.
How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
If the writing flows more the reader has an easier time understanding the purpose because they don't have to dissect every sentence. The structure allows the reader to absorb all the information you are presenting them if the sentences flow.
Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you were writing?
No because the conventions are the same as the first assignment. The only change was that this paper had to have a stronger language to it than before.
How does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
The reflection allows me to look through the successes and failures of a project and allows me to see where I need improvement in the field of writing to do better. Thee is always room for improvement and reflections like this really help.
Not much was changed for me personally in terms of content because I felt that my analysis was sound and supported so I mostly looked at grammatical errors. Another thing I revised pretty heavily was the way my sentences flowed so that it would contain less run-ons and deliver an smooth reading.
How did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
I looked over my thesis and realized that there wasn't much that I could do to improve what I had. My organization needed to be fixed a little bit in certain places but all in all my thoughts are presented in a clear and concise manner.
What lead you to these changes? A reconsideration of audiences? A shift in purpose?
I made the changes that I talked about above because I began to go against my analysis halfway through a paragraph so I had to fix it. That was the only real organizational fix I needed.
How will these changes affect your credibility as an author?
Well it made me more credible because I wasn't contradicting myself anymore. This improved what would of been a really messy paper that questioned bot my analysis and credibility.
How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
Nothing really changes the audience or venue the changes mostly effect the credibility of me as an author.
How do you reconsider sentence structure and style?
The biggest thing to reconsider is if the sentence sounds right. Its basic and simple and it take care of broken statements and it can tell the author if their writing is smooth and not choppy. Also a big thing to look at is to see if there are a variety of sentence types because it helps make the writing flow.
How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
If the writing flows more the reader has an easier time understanding the purpose because they don't have to dissect every sentence. The structure allows the reader to absorb all the information you are presenting them if the sentences flow.
Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you were writing?
No because the conventions are the same as the first assignment. The only change was that this paper had to have a stronger language to it than before.
How does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
The reflection allows me to look through the successes and failures of a project and allows me to see where I need improvement in the field of writing to do better. Thee is always room for improvement and reflections like this really help.
Cultural Analysis of The Stem Cell Debates
- Previewing: This text is significant in addressing the issue of stem cells because during the time of this text, stem cells became more popular as a legitimate option for treating certain illnesses and this report came at a time where the public still didn't look favorably on the idea of acquiring stem cells from embryos. But this report came at a time of change as the Bush Administration was replaced by the Obama Administration, stem cells became more favorable. This report was published after the Obama Administration signed an executive order to fun stem cell research so with a change in presidency a new outlook on stem cells came about.
- Cultural References: There are not many cultural references seen in this paper mostly due to the authors need to use factual evidence rather than try and connect with certain cultures. The closest reference would be to the 2001 Bush Administrations executive order removing federal funding for stem cell research.
- Cultural Values: The author shows their cultural values by showing how they are focused on getting their point across. Since it is multiple authors, they don't reference their values but they do show that they believe in upholding the ethics of scientific experimentation and that they do support the scientific community in pursuing other options to get around the ban while keeping the experiments legal.
- Narrow Your Focus: From the ideas presented above, the focus of my analysis will have to be around the authors focus on proving that stem cell research is in fact ehtil and that is what they are trying to prove. If I focus on this idea then I can elaborate from that with a few different supports allowing for a robust paper.
2. These words are repeated more than 20 times each.
3. The Witherspoon Council is trying to present a case for why Embryotic stem cell research should not be banned by addressing the ethical concerns.
5. These keywords are used because they get attention of those who are apposed to the idea of stem cell research because after each on of these words there are generally opposing views to the reader the author is addressing.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Rhetorical Analysis on The Stem Cell Debate
An Analysis of The Stem Cell Debates
by Adam Karsten
As one of the most important scientific discoveries in the world, stem cells have emerged as starting a new era of medicine for humanity. The countless number of uses has caused a frenzy of scientific experimentations to help cure malignant diseases that plague our world. The biggest issue however with these small organisms is how they are acquired. The practice of stem cell research is seen as unethical by many due to the fact that they are taken from aborted fetuses. After many sanctions and withdrawals of government funding, the Witherspoon Council, a group of scientists who deem certain experiments as ethical or not, released a report that addresses the ethical grounds of such research and to convince those against the study of stem cells. With the use of persuasive writing through evidence and the ability to firmly drive their argument towards their readers, the Witherspoon Council was able to craft an intricate argument for the use of Stem Cells in research. The rhetorical strategies to logically back their arguments make their writing more trustworthy and ultimately leads to a better case for their cause.
The Stem Cell Debates was written for the primary purpose of convincing the public and important leaders about the misconceptions and ethics of stem cell research. This type of piece was created to influence a variety of people, but it primarily caters to those against stem cell research. This attitude is shown right from the start where the Council states “the meeting is focused on the recent recommendation….that the federal government should fund a range of research involving human embryos.”(1,Witherspoon). This gives the reader an instant understanding of the stance of the author and what point is trying to get through. There isn’t any rhetorical strategies behind it, they just get straight to the point. This is done again in the next paragraph where the author explains that the public focuses on the moral issue without understanding the actual use of the stem cells (1,Witherspoon). The “extremely high level of public ignorance” is what this report wants to try and fix so that stem cells are more likely to be supported by the public. With this in mind the author then uses a number of rhetorical strategies to meet their goal.
The rhetorical strategy that is most used and most successful in this report is the appeal to logic or logos. This is a very important strategy that is used in this field because in order to get your point across to your peers, your argument has to have support that is factual and sound in order to even be looked at. Even though this is true for most rhetorical pieces, it is especially important for this report. If the reader who is perceived to be “extremely ignorant” doesn’t understand what is being said, or is unable to connect the dots, opinions are less likely to change. With an argument that involves aborted fetuses people will be exceedingly stubborn and must be coerced into believing what you're saying is true. For example, the Witherspoon Council addresses those who may be critical of embryonic stem cell research by stating that “theses critics have unfairly downplayed the promise of ES cell research, belittling it as “wishful thinking and hype” (9,Witherspoon). The significance of this is that in the paragraphs before they address the numerous uses of stem cells from the ability to treat leukemia and HIV to the ability to use the cells to study diseases at a deeper level (9,Witherspoon). All this is backed by actual research and implementation of stem cells to combat those diseases. They proved them wrong. The author addresses this in order to reach out to the public. The writing style is not complex, it simplifies the results and allows those who are not scientifically adept understand what has been otherwise seen as an incredibly complex topic to understand. Even though this paper is more geared towards politicians, these bits and pieces of simplicity allows the common person to create their own opinion on stem cell research. This is significant because the writer makes the more stem cell research favorable sections a lot easier to understand, making the reader lean towards the author's side. They morph the reader’s opinion. This then leads to a change in public perception of stem cells that is positive which then leads to a change at the political level because in politics the constituents are always right. The author is still maintaining his report to be read by the federal government, but the little bits and pieces that are reaching the common person are significant all the same.
This report definitely highlights how a speech should be written in the field of microbiology. It does a variety of things well. Such as relying heavily on the rhetorical strategy of logos while making the information simple to those who don’t understand it. While this paper does adhere to these guidelines, it can get very technical at times and there needs to be more pathos or appeal to emotion. This is significant because humanity today needs to find something to link itself with. What this means is that people want to be part of a group. Want to be on a side and have an opinion. This is seen today frequently on the internet where everyone gives their opinion no matter the subject. This type of strategy however has to be factual. If it is a fact that is eye-catching and give that “oh my god” kind of feel towards the reader, they will remember that fact and form an opinion around it. So if something like this was included in a paper whose audience is the public, the ability to use logic to explain your point to where it is relatable and simple while adding a bit of shock value here and there, it will be a very popular speech in the field of microbiology. If you are writing a speech to help bring change in the field of microbiology these are the types of strategies you want to follow.
The Stem Cell Debates is a strong example of a well written speech on a controversial subject such as stem cells. The Witherspoon Council is able to create this exquisite paper by using the rhetorical strategies of appeal to logic while making the speech cater to the public.
Sources
Draft of Rhetorical Analysis
There isn't too much that I think that needs to be edited other than a few grammar mistakes and a couple of sentence structures but if anything needs to be looked at let me know.
Link to Document
Link to Document
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Sections of the Paper
- Introduction: The plan for the beginning of my paper is to give a bit of background on the subject of stem cells and talk a bit about the author the Witherspoon council. Then I will connect my introduction to my thesis with some kind of transitional sentence.
- Thesis: With the use persuasive writing through evidence and the ability to firmly drive their argument towards their readers, the Witherspoon Council is able to craft a intricate argument for the use of Stem Cells in research. The rhetorical strategies to logically back their arguments makes their writing more trustworthy and ultimately leads to a better case for their cause.
- The body paragraphs: For the first body paragraph I am going to start with the purpose of the piece and the point the author is trying to get across. This is significant because it helps set a foundation for my next couple of paragraphs. The second paragraph is going to be focused on the audience and how the author attempts to connect with them. The third paragraph is going to be about the appeal to logic and how the author uses this strategy effectively. The fourth paragraph is going to be about the strategies that work for this type of writing and how they are effective in other speeches for this type of field. The final body paragraph is going to contain what makes a good argument for my field by using all of the examples in the earlier parts of my paper.
- Analytical Claims: The author uses logic to firmly push the idea about how stem cells are ethical. Also something that is noticed is that they go back and forth between events that were against stem cell research and then ultimately showing why they were wrong and why they should look at what stem cells are like now then how we have viewed them in the past. They essentially tell the readers that they can't really go against the ethics of stem cells because they can't disprove their support. Cause they would be wrong.
- The support for each claim: There are a variety of ways I can support the claims I have made and I will use a couple of them for this paper specifically when the author is talking about Embryotic cells and the controversy behind them. The reason why I want to use this as a support is that it signifies the appeal to logic because the author basically says that well if this type of cell is frowned upon we will find another way to acquire stem cells and they do which shows how they want to persuade the reader.
- The conclusion is going to wrap up what I said throughout the paper and then restate my thesis.
Draft Thesis Statements
1. Through the use of carefully laid out writing, The Witherspoon Council is able to use logical writing to methodically persuade a variety of readers to support the research of stem cells.
This is a short simple thesis that gets the authors purpose across as well as highlighting the rhetorical strategies and it really sets a tone for what to expect throughout the rest of the paper.
2. With the use persuasive writing through evidence and the ability to firmly drive their argument towards their readers, the Witherspoon Council is able to craft a intricate argument for the use of Stem Cells in research. The rhetorical strategies to logically back their arguments makes their writing more trustworthy and ultimately leads to a better case for their cause.
I really like this thesis statement because it sets the tone for the paper and the type of diction coincides with the piece while also catching the eye of the reader. I think it is a strong thesis that gets the point of what is being written, what to look forward in the paper.
This is a short simple thesis that gets the authors purpose across as well as highlighting the rhetorical strategies and it really sets a tone for what to expect throughout the rest of the paper.
2. With the use persuasive writing through evidence and the ability to firmly drive their argument towards their readers, the Witherspoon Council is able to craft a intricate argument for the use of Stem Cells in research. The rhetorical strategies to logically back their arguments makes their writing more trustworthy and ultimately leads to a better case for their cause.
I really like this thesis statement because it sets the tone for the paper and the type of diction coincides with the piece while also catching the eye of the reader. I think it is a strong thesis that gets the point of what is being written, what to look forward in the paper.
Analyzing my Audience
- The readers beliefs and assumptions in my article are quite diverse in this article. The reason for this is that the readers are politicians, scientists and possibly random people in the public. The beliefs will vary from those pro-life to those who are pro-choice or those who believe that stem cell research should be heavily regulated to those who believe it works.
- The most appropriate language for the audience would have to be formal and informative since this report is used to inform those who may be against stem cell research. The language needs to be firm so that the reader actually believes what is being written is true.
- The sociopolitical and economic backgrounds of the reader is probably in the upper middle class to upper class due to the careers and knowledge of the readers. This is because this piece is geared more to the politicians and scientists who have the ability to make a difference and even though the common person controls the elections that employ politicians, they can't make as much of a contribution in a short time.
- Again the position that the reader would take on this issue would be different depending on the reader. After reading it the author hopes that the reader would lean towards more of a pro-stem cell but that depends on the reader. So the author may be hoping for more readers to be against stem cells because then they can convince them to support their work.
- The main thing the reader will want to know is how they see stem cell research as being ethical and what do they have to support it. The reader wants to see the stance that the author has taken and learn how stem cells can help us while being an ethical process because the fact that stem cells were primarily taken from fetuses was the biggest gripe by stem cell research critics. That group of people will be the ones to read every detail of this piece.
- With all this being said the best way to persuade the audience is to use firm language and support your arguments with facts. No one will believe you if you can't support your ideas with facts and it comes down to believing what you're writing.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in The Stem Cell Debates: Lessons for Science and Politics
Appeals to Credibility or Character: "Historically, the federal government has provided considerable support for the scientific project. The classic articulation of postwar science policy in the United States is found in Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report to President Franklin Roosevelt, Science, The Endless Frontier In this influential report, Bush (no relation to President Bush) argued that government funding for science, particularly for what he dubbed “basic research,” was essential to ensuring that America continue to enjoy the technological progress necessary for the nation’s strength and prosperity."
The author uses a reference to credible source in this quote to Appeal to credibility. He uses this quote to show that he is very supportive of science being an endless frontier as said by Bush. This quote is one of many that shows the authors stance on science and what they view. This strategy has a huge impact on the text because it is showing where the author stands. Without it the author doesn't show there stance.
Appeals to Emotion: "Thus, ES cell research demands that we consider the moral status of the human embryo. Many proponents of ES cell research consider the human embryo to be merely a “clump of cells,” morally no different from any other bit of tissue. By contrast, many critics of ES cell research argue that the human embryo is a human being at a very early stage of development, and therefore possesses at least the right not to be killed for research or to be exploited as a medical resource."
The part of the text that triggers the appeal to emotion strategy is the text of this quote. The tone is very focused on human embryos and that phrase is focused on to make a point to the reader who may not agree with stem cells. This repetition gets the readers attention because since this is the main argument those against stem cells have. It is used to get that attention so that the author can present their argument for why they are wrong and should be on the side of pro-stem cell. There are no visible fallacies that I can see. The appeal to emotion works because it is able to attract the reader to focus on what may be the most important counter argument.
Appeal to Logic: "the U.S. government also came to recognize the importance of regulating scientific research, particularly biomedical and behavioral research conducted on human subjects. The horrific scientific experiments performed by Nazi doctors during the Second World War, along with other cruel and unethical experiments performed in the United States and around the world, clearly demonstrated the need for ethical oversight of scientific research. Governments around the world instituted policies on research ethics and the protection of human subjects, based on the principles articulated in such documents as the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report."
The author uses this rhetorical strategy to try and get the reader to understand why there are a system of regulating scientific studies. The author uses a mixture of historical records and reports from the experiments done by Nazi Scientists that were deemed inhumane and some were even tried for war crimes. This use of logic backs up their reason for telling the reader the significance of what the author does which is overlooking the ethics of experiments. The quote doesn't have any fallacies that are seen in the Student's Guide. The final result of this strategy is that it works because the reader better understands what the author is trying to get at.
The author uses a reference to credible source in this quote to Appeal to credibility. He uses this quote to show that he is very supportive of science being an endless frontier as said by Bush. This quote is one of many that shows the authors stance on science and what they view. This strategy has a huge impact on the text because it is showing where the author stands. Without it the author doesn't show there stance.
Appeals to Emotion: "Thus, ES cell research demands that we consider the moral status of the human embryo. Many proponents of ES cell research consider the human embryo to be merely a “clump of cells,” morally no different from any other bit of tissue. By contrast, many critics of ES cell research argue that the human embryo is a human being at a very early stage of development, and therefore possesses at least the right not to be killed for research or to be exploited as a medical resource."
The part of the text that triggers the appeal to emotion strategy is the text of this quote. The tone is very focused on human embryos and that phrase is focused on to make a point to the reader who may not agree with stem cells. This repetition gets the readers attention because since this is the main argument those against stem cells have. It is used to get that attention so that the author can present their argument for why they are wrong and should be on the side of pro-stem cell. There are no visible fallacies that I can see. The appeal to emotion works because it is able to attract the reader to focus on what may be the most important counter argument.
Appeal to Logic: "the U.S. government also came to recognize the importance of regulating scientific research, particularly biomedical and behavioral research conducted on human subjects. The horrific scientific experiments performed by Nazi doctors during the Second World War, along with other cruel and unethical experiments performed in the United States and around the world, clearly demonstrated the need for ethical oversight of scientific research. Governments around the world instituted policies on research ethics and the protection of human subjects, based on the principles articulated in such documents as the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report."
The author uses this rhetorical strategy to try and get the reader to understand why there are a system of regulating scientific studies. The author uses a mixture of historical records and reports from the experiments done by Nazi Scientists that were deemed inhumane and some were even tried for war crimes. This use of logic backs up their reason for telling the reader the significance of what the author does which is overlooking the ethics of experiments. The quote doesn't have any fallacies that are seen in the Student's Guide. The final result of this strategy is that it works because the reader better understands what the author is trying to get at.
Analyzing the Message in The Stem Cell Debates: Lessons for Science and Politics
- The bullet point that most fit this text is that this piece is trying to persuade readers that Stem cells are not unethical. They do this by using facts to attempt to sway the reader because you can't argue with facts. It is something that you have to accept if it has been researched and agreed upon. They do have opinions that they use to sway the reader but this is their main goal.
- The goal that does not seem relevant in this piece is to analyze,synthesize, or interpret because this text looks more at a topic that the author wants to explain and persuade to the reader why stem cells are not unethical. The author doesn't analyze the subject of stem cells because that is something that isn't seen as much in the scientific field, except in research findings when they analyze their results.
- There isn't any kind of layers or nuances in this speech because it doesn't seem that the author needs or wants to do this. The reason for this is that the author wants to get there point across to persuade the reader so hiding layers or nuances would be pointless and actually harm the argument given.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations
Source #1:
Author/Speaker: The author of this article is Claudia Driefus who doesn't have a large amount of credentials other than writing for the NY Times. She is interviewing Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard who gives his thoughts on Stem Cell Research which he was researching.
Audience: The variety of people that this can appeal to ranges from the average NY Times reader to a politician or even a top scientist.
Context: The context of the interview looks at how Dr. Melton feels about his research on stem cells being barred from federal funding in 2001. He is frustrated by this because he and his team were on the verge of some huge breakthroughs in stem cell research only to loose funding because of controversy of how stem cells are acquired.
Story
Source #2:
Author/Speaker: The article is written by the Witherspoon Council which is a scientific organization that focuses on the ethics and integrity of scientific experimentation. It is a qualified organization to write an article like this.
Audience: The audience are those who oppose stem cell research and this article gives reasons to support and encourage stem cell research. It is heavily backed by facts and benefits of stem cell research as well as addressing the more frowned upon aspects of stem cell research. They want to present a case for the people against stem cell research.
Context: The article blatantly shows the reader that it is for stem cell research which sets the tone for the rest of the article. Through a list that includes the Bush revocation of federal funding to common misrepresentations of stem cell research. The obviously pro-stemcell use facts to support their arguments but there main goal is to show that stem cell research is unethical in there eyes which may sway some readers and if you look at the facts it makes sense.
Story
Source #3
Author/Speaker: Russell T Daley is a graduate student at California State University and his paper looks at the ethics of stem cell research and how it could be looked at as ethical in certain cases and not ethical in other cases. He is a graduate student so he is credible as his work has been published.
Audience: The audience that this paper is geared towards is the scientific community. Daley looks into what both sides see as ethical stem cell research and what is not ethical. He wants the scientific community to follow the examples he has given. His audience will look at this paper and feel impressed by the suggestions made.
Context: Daley uses a variety of ways to reach his audience and by far the biggest is by giving ideas on how to describe stem cells. Daley believes that if the scientific community uses the correct and friendly rhetoric to describe stem cells they will be looed on more favorably. If this happens then the benefits will be more focused on then the ethics of stem cell research which is a huge roadblock.
Story
Author/Speaker: The author of this article is Claudia Driefus who doesn't have a large amount of credentials other than writing for the NY Times. She is interviewing Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard who gives his thoughts on Stem Cell Research which he was researching.
Audience: The variety of people that this can appeal to ranges from the average NY Times reader to a politician or even a top scientist.
Context: The context of the interview looks at how Dr. Melton feels about his research on stem cells being barred from federal funding in 2001. He is frustrated by this because he and his team were on the verge of some huge breakthroughs in stem cell research only to loose funding because of controversy of how stem cells are acquired.
Story
Source #2:
Author/Speaker: The article is written by the Witherspoon Council which is a scientific organization that focuses on the ethics and integrity of scientific experimentation. It is a qualified organization to write an article like this.
Audience: The audience are those who oppose stem cell research and this article gives reasons to support and encourage stem cell research. It is heavily backed by facts and benefits of stem cell research as well as addressing the more frowned upon aspects of stem cell research. They want to present a case for the people against stem cell research.
Context: The article blatantly shows the reader that it is for stem cell research which sets the tone for the rest of the article. Through a list that includes the Bush revocation of federal funding to common misrepresentations of stem cell research. The obviously pro-stemcell use facts to support their arguments but there main goal is to show that stem cell research is unethical in there eyes which may sway some readers and if you look at the facts it makes sense.
Story
Source #3
Author/Speaker: Russell T Daley is a graduate student at California State University and his paper looks at the ethics of stem cell research and how it could be looked at as ethical in certain cases and not ethical in other cases. He is a graduate student so he is credible as his work has been published.
Audience: The audience that this paper is geared towards is the scientific community. Daley looks into what both sides see as ethical stem cell research and what is not ethical. He wants the scientific community to follow the examples he has given. His audience will look at this paper and feel impressed by the suggestions made.
Context: Daley uses a variety of ways to reach his audience and by far the biggest is by giving ideas on how to describe stem cells. Daley believes that if the scientific community uses the correct and friendly rhetoric to describe stem cells they will be looed on more favorably. If this happens then the benefits will be more focused on then the ethics of stem cell research which is a huge roadblock.
Story
Friday, July 24, 2015
Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns
In my paragraph I realized that I use long complicated sentences. It is basically my entire paragraph of long sentences which isn't bad but I could do something better
Instead I could use more short sentences to make quick points and add flow. Long drawn out sentences can be dreary to continuously read so maybe if I used more simple sentences my work could have some flow.
Instead I could use more short sentences to make quick points and add flow. Long drawn out sentences can be dreary to continuously read so maybe if I used more simple sentences my work could have some flow.
Developing a Research Question
In the field of microbiology there are a large amount of debates currently going on. It is a field that is riddled with political involvement, ethical boundaries, and dangerous research. Some of these arguments have been hotly debated for years and I want to explore these areas.
The first question I want to delve into is the research and application of stem cells. As of today we know a lot about these cells and they have proven to work pretty well but the acquisition of them is actually very difficult. So what want to research is How difficult it is to acquire stem cells and can it be used for everyone? What I want to look at is if stem cell treatments can be give to everyone not just certain people.
Another topic I want to look at is "super viruses" which came up a lot and I want to look more into them. The question I ant to ask is that if super viruses are a real possibility or can we eradicate them?
Back to stem cells a huge debate that has been occurring for year is whether or not stem cells are ethically wrong or are they worth it? This is a commonly asked question in my field and I want to look more into it.
These are the more talked about debates in my field and I hope to look further into them
The first question I want to delve into is the research and application of stem cells. As of today we know a lot about these cells and they have proven to work pretty well but the acquisition of them is actually very difficult. So what want to research is How difficult it is to acquire stem cells and can it be used for everyone? What I want to look at is if stem cell treatments can be give to everyone not just certain people.
Another topic I want to look at is "super viruses" which came up a lot and I want to look more into them. The question I ant to ask is that if super viruses are a real possibility or can we eradicate them?
Back to stem cells a huge debate that has been occurring for year is whether or not stem cells are ethically wrong or are they worth it? This is a commonly asked question in my field and I want to look more into it.
These are the more talked about debates in my field and I hope to look further into them
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Reflection on Project 1
What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Card project and how did you deal with them?
The biggest challenge I faced in this project was combining all the data I had found and putting it into a nice formatted guide to the controversy. Some of the articles I was reading barely made sense to me at the time which made it even harder to put into words that others who are not in the same field can understand. The fact that I had to detail certain scientific reports into summaries for others to understand made this project a bit challenging.
What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
Some of the successes I had on this project were mostly due to the fact that I could find reliable news sources that highlighted the problem at hand which surprised me at first. There was a lot of debate over this kind of issue that involved high profile politicians and scientists which showed me how serious this issue was. Another major success for me was that I believe I was able to compile the information I gathered from my sources and make a basic yet informative QRG.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?
The most effective writing practice for me was to state the answer to the question in a basic form then I would back the question with facts or reports. I would try and support both sides of the issues with their views and stances. The reason I did this was because this kind of issue focuses on the facts and reports in order to be solved reasonably because this is the kind of community that solves its problems like this.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?
I didn't really have any practices that were ineffective in my opinion. If it didn't seem like it would work I avoided it and stuck with what was working for me.
How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This was a lot like a research paper I had to do during my senior year of high school where we researched controversial issues. The process of looking at sources and writing about them was the same so it was a shorter and more streamlined version of that paper.
How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This process was very similar to writing processes I have had in the past and didn't divert to anything I'm not used to.
Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?
Yes, I think that this project helped me find a new way to cite certain journals and it has made me look at news articles and journals in a different way. This has also allowed me to combine my information to match a QRG that could help me do better on other papers.
The biggest challenge I faced in this project was combining all the data I had found and putting it into a nice formatted guide to the controversy. Some of the articles I was reading barely made sense to me at the time which made it even harder to put into words that others who are not in the same field can understand. The fact that I had to detail certain scientific reports into summaries for others to understand made this project a bit challenging.
What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
Some of the successes I had on this project were mostly due to the fact that I could find reliable news sources that highlighted the problem at hand which surprised me at first. There was a lot of debate over this kind of issue that involved high profile politicians and scientists which showed me how serious this issue was. Another major success for me was that I believe I was able to compile the information I gathered from my sources and make a basic yet informative QRG.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?
The most effective writing practice for me was to state the answer to the question in a basic form then I would back the question with facts or reports. I would try and support both sides of the issues with their views and stances. The reason I did this was because this kind of issue focuses on the facts and reports in order to be solved reasonably because this is the kind of community that solves its problems like this.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?
I didn't really have any practices that were ineffective in my opinion. If it didn't seem like it would work I avoided it and stuck with what was working for me.
How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This was a lot like a research paper I had to do during my senior year of high school where we researched controversial issues. The process of looking at sources and writing about them was the same so it was a shorter and more streamlined version of that paper.
How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This process was very similar to writing processes I have had in the past and didn't divert to anything I'm not used to.
Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?
Yes, I think that this project helped me find a new way to cite certain journals and it has made me look at news articles and journals in a different way. This has also allowed me to combine my information to match a QRG that could help me do better on other papers.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Draft of Quick Reference Guide
The main things I would like my peer reviewers too look at is content, if it makes sense and is clear and to look at grammar to make sure everything is nice and neat. I do tend to extend my sentences so if there is some that seem to long or change the main idea comment please. Otherwise thank you very much for taking the time to look at my draft.
Open Document
Open Document
Saturday, July 18, 2015
QRG, the Genre
The conventions of QRGs come across as a professional way to get information across and as such the writing is very formal and structured as such in order to present the information to the reader as easily as possible.
The author formats their work by posing questions that the common person may have. This is to present the reader with all the fact they may want to know and to lead them to learn more. It allows the author to go over every part of the guide needed and the formatting is almost like a press conference where the author responds to questions that are most likely going to be asked.
In reading a couple of different QRGs the reason for these types of writing is to inform the reader of an event that is going on whether it be a supreme court case, a controversy or an ongoing development. These type of guides seem to be used to inform the reader about what is occurring and to give a sort of timeline of the events and the key people involved. So this type of content is more directed at those who want to get a broad overview of something.
The author formats their work by posing questions that the common person may have. This is to present the reader with all the fact they may want to know and to lead them to learn more. It allows the author to go over every part of the guide needed and the formatting is almost like a press conference where the author responds to questions that are most likely going to be asked.
In reading a couple of different QRGs the reason for these types of writing is to inform the reader of an event that is going on whether it be a supreme court case, a controversy or an ongoing development. These type of guides seem to be used to inform the reader about what is occurring and to give a sort of timeline of the events and the key people involved. So this type of content is more directed at those who want to get a broad overview of something.
Cluster of Pathogen Controversy
Summary of Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens
Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens
Step 1)
Paragraph 1: The author introduces us to the controversy in this case being the debate over the deliberate creation of super flu strains to study.
Paragraph 2: The author shows us both sides of the controversy the side that supports the creation of these modified super flu strains and the side that believes that it isn't worth the risk.
Paragraph 3: States that the National Academy of Sciences is watching over the debates in order to find a middle ground.
Paragraph 4: The National Health organization is talking about how they are looking into the considerations and stances of both sides of the debate.
Paragraph 5: Introduces Dr. Atruro Casadevall's statement regarding how the main focus should be on the scientific questions.
Paragraph 6: Scientist have debates all the time according to Casadevall
Paragraph 7: Casadevall talks about how this is new territory and how the decisions need more debate than what is common in the scientific community.
Paragraph 8: Dr. David Relman is against the idea of creating new diseases.
Paragraph 9: Relman believes that the public should be included more in this discussion because potentially their lives could be at risk.
Paragraph 10: Work at a lab that created a lab-altered strain of the bird flu was halted for a couple of years after federal oversight increased but key questions were not answered.
Paragraph 11: Relman explains that we haven't answered the question whether or not these kind of experiments should be undertaken.
Paragraph 12: Relman created an organization that would tell researchers to stop experiments leading to a new pathogen till they understand the benefits and risks.
Paragraph 13: The statement above came out just as news of laboratory mishaps were being reported.
Paragraph 14: Refers to the Ebola outbreak to give an example of a pandemic.
Paragraph 15: This all led to a group that defends the creation of pathogens.
Paragraph 16: Paul Duprex wants to work with these diseases that has killed many people because it benefits people.
Paragraph 17: Duprex created a group called Scientists for science to back his stance on the study of dangerous pathogens. The group is composed of people who do work on these pathogens.
Paragraph 18: Scientists either have to join the discussion or not.
Paragraph 19: Both groups have websites each with over a hundred supporters.
Paragraph 20: The American Society for Microbiology has called on the National Academy of science to help resolve this issue and they have decided to look over agreements in the coming months.
Paragraph 21: Tim Donohue says that similar talks have happened in the past and that both sides need to understand the benefits and risks before coming to an agreement.
Step 2)
The main idea behind this article is that both sides are gaining support and that this debate on whether the creation of lethal pathogens should be allowed will b happening soon. In order for this to occur however both sides need to understand the risks and benefits to both the scientific community and the public.
Step 3)
The summary above meets al the requirements that were set.
Step 1)
Paragraph 1: The author introduces us to the controversy in this case being the debate over the deliberate creation of super flu strains to study.
Paragraph 2: The author shows us both sides of the controversy the side that supports the creation of these modified super flu strains and the side that believes that it isn't worth the risk.
Paragraph 3: States that the National Academy of Sciences is watching over the debates in order to find a middle ground.
Paragraph 4: The National Health organization is talking about how they are looking into the considerations and stances of both sides of the debate.
Paragraph 5: Introduces Dr. Atruro Casadevall's statement regarding how the main focus should be on the scientific questions.
Paragraph 6: Scientist have debates all the time according to Casadevall
Paragraph 7: Casadevall talks about how this is new territory and how the decisions need more debate than what is common in the scientific community.
Paragraph 8: Dr. David Relman is against the idea of creating new diseases.
Paragraph 9: Relman believes that the public should be included more in this discussion because potentially their lives could be at risk.
Paragraph 10: Work at a lab that created a lab-altered strain of the bird flu was halted for a couple of years after federal oversight increased but key questions were not answered.
Paragraph 11: Relman explains that we haven't answered the question whether or not these kind of experiments should be undertaken.
Paragraph 12: Relman created an organization that would tell researchers to stop experiments leading to a new pathogen till they understand the benefits and risks.
Paragraph 13: The statement above came out just as news of laboratory mishaps were being reported.
Paragraph 14: Refers to the Ebola outbreak to give an example of a pandemic.
Paragraph 15: This all led to a group that defends the creation of pathogens.
Paragraph 16: Paul Duprex wants to work with these diseases that has killed many people because it benefits people.
Paragraph 17: Duprex created a group called Scientists for science to back his stance on the study of dangerous pathogens. The group is composed of people who do work on these pathogens.
Paragraph 18: Scientists either have to join the discussion or not.
Paragraph 19: Both groups have websites each with over a hundred supporters.
Paragraph 20: The American Society for Microbiology has called on the National Academy of science to help resolve this issue and they have decided to look over agreements in the coming months.
Paragraph 21: Tim Donohue says that similar talks have happened in the past and that both sides need to understand the benefits and risks before coming to an agreement.
Step 2)
The main idea behind this article is that both sides are gaining support and that this debate on whether the creation of lethal pathogens should be allowed will b happening soon. In order for this to occur however both sides need to understand the risks and benefits to both the scientific community and the public.
Step 3)
The summary above meets al the requirements that were set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)