Draft of Open Letter

We're on our final project!  I've written my first draft of my open letter, which can be viewed here.

Mostly, in reviewing this draft, I would like to know if I'm answering the prompt thoroughly enough, so if while reading it you have any suggestions about that, they are welcome.  Do you think I covered the semester thoroughly enough?  Also, I didn't do extensive research on the genre (it's the end of the semester and I'm getting a little lazy -- I'm not proud of it), so if you see something that doesn't fit the conventions of an open letter, please note that as well.  And finally, I'd like your opinions on the tone of the letter, and if it seems appropriate.

Friedman, Lynn. "artMRKT 2013: End of Story Neon Sign."
5/17/13 via Flickr. Application-NonCommerical-NoDerivs
2.0 Generic License.

Reflection More on My Writing Experiences

To help me draft my final project, I'm answering a few more questions addressing my writing process and experience in this course this semester.

Sagdejev, Ildar. "Ball point pen writing." 2/29/04 via
Wikimedia Commons. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

• What are the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?
• The biggest challenge I faced was probably getting all of the blog work done, and making sure that I fully understood the project assignments and was answering the prompt in my papers.  I'm used to writing a lot (I keep a journal and do creative writing on generally a daily basis), but the sheer amount of work for this class definitely took some getting used to and adjusting for.  I had to make sure that I had cleared enough time out of my schedule to put the work into my writing that I needed to.  In all, doing most of the blog work was helpful in developing my ideas for my projects.  Another problem I had was that initially I wasn't sure I totally understood the prompt, because we were writing in styles that I wasn't used, such as the QRG.  My first draft of my QRG wasn't really like a QRG at all, so I had to change it up significantly.
• What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?
• I realized that I am extremely fortunate to have learned from quality English teachers in the past, so for me the transition to this class was probably easier than it was for others.  Like everyone, I was worried about how much time I had to do everything I wanted to, but ultimately I found as long as I spent a few dedicated hours to do my homework every day, I could still get enough sleep and not become too overwhelmed.  I also became faster at writing blog posts, which helped me significantly.  
• In terms of writing, while I had to get used to new genres and more creative prompts, I think I'm a strong enough writer that for me completing the projects probably wasn't as painful as it was for others.  I found for the rhetorical analysis especially, that I knew exactly what to do and felt very comfortable.  Since I improved my initial drafts, that meant I had to spend less time editing and revising.  I found that instead of doing multiple reads over my drafts, which is time consuming and not sometimes overwhelming, instead I would focus on only one problem at a time, and make sure that I had a solution to fix that section of writing before I began revising heavily.
• What do you know about the concept of 'genre'?  Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.
• The type of genre can alter the rhetorical situation.  Understanding what type of genre one must work in, and what the conventions of that genre is becomes crucial to writing a piece that effectively completes its purpose.  Genres are not just based on the content of the writing, but also the media, the readers, the organization, and the tone the writing should take.  In understanding genre, overall writers can become much more effective in delivering their message. 
• What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?
• One of the most important things I learned this semester was how to approach a writing scenario I'm not familiar with, and how to quickly and efficiently produce a quality response.  This will be really helpful, because I'm sure that in my next few years I'll encounter types of writing that I'm not familiar with, in genres I've never written in, but now I know what to do to understand what's being asked of me, and how to write in that new style.
• What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H?
• My most effective moment was probably writing and revising Project 2.  I remember the exercise when we had to write a completely new introduction and conclusion.  I was confused and a little annoyed, because I thought my intro and conclusion were already strong, but when I read more about introductions and conclusions, I realized that what I had written wasn't strong at all, and I rewrote something much improved.  I also found that what I had learned in high school about rhetorical analysis had prepared me well for college, which was reassuring and pleasant to realize.
• What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H?
• My least effective moment was probably drafting the QRG.  I know I've mentioned this multiple times, but I put so much effort into writing that first draft, but most of that time and effort was fruitless, because I wasn't writing in the style of a QRG.  It made me understand the importance of understanding the genre I'm writing in; initially, I had believed that I was answering the prompt in the way I was supposed to.  I ended up having to completely redo my organization, and how I approached the paper in my revision process.

Revisiting My Writing Process

To start planning my final project, I've begun reflecting on my earlier writing for this class; more specifically the first two blog posts I wrote.  I think my writing style has changed throughout even this semester, and my time management has as well.

WokinghamLibraries. "Creative, Writing, Editing, Library."
5/8/13 via Pixabay. Public Domain Licence.

When I first wrote "My Writing Process" I thought that I would rely on peer review much more than I turned out needing.  In this class, I found it most useful to talk to the instructor mostly to make sure that I was on the right track and answering the prompt of the assignment, which initially I usually wasn't.  I've also found that I've kept a lot of things from my first drafts, especially with Project 2 and 3.  I think this shows that I'm becoming a stronger writing because what I produce from the start is of much high quality than it was for Project 1 or previous writing projects from high school.

I still believe that I'm a sequential writer, but the writing process is a significantly less daunting task than it was when I started this class.  I find now that I have to spend less time on each of the writing steps.  I am able to think and plan more effectively, and that allows me to draft quicker and write things of higher quality.  Overall, this means that I'm more efficient, which has also helped my time management.  I remember that I spent many hours on Project 1, and had to revise a ton for my final draft, because my first draft didn't really follow the conventions of the genre.  However, for the later two projects, I didn't have to spend near as much time completely rewriting and restructuring sections.

In terms of time management, I have generally been able to stick with my plans of working on deadlines earlier, so I don't have to do everything in only a couple days.  This has really allowed me to help plan out my ideas and writing for projects, which makes it easier to do the actual drafting.

I'm not sure how much writing I'll be doing in Environmental Science.  I know I'm taking a lot of science classes which won't demand the same kind of writing vigor as this one, but that of course doesn't mean I won't have to write again.  I'll probably be writing in different genres, but now I know how to write in a genre I'm not familiar with.  I think this class helped me realize that writing a paper or a project isn't such an insurmountable task, and that as long as I follow my planning and drafting process that I've been doing this semester, I'll be able to handle it, which is reassuring.

Reflection on Project 3

Now that I've finished my Project 3 public argument, I'm reflecting on my writing process and the steps I took to complete the paper, which will help me with our final project as well.

Manske, Magnus. "Spring flowers at sunset near Perido, AZ." 2/15/13 via
Wikimedia Commons. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. In order to make the article more of a refutation argument, I focused on refuting each of the steps in the drought plan in my final draft, which was a shift from my first draft.  This added more structure and organization to my argument.  I also shifted the audience from city government officials to Tucson residents, because I was already sort of leaning that way, and it made more sense, given my platform of a newspaper, which Tucson residents read.
2. In reconsidering my thesis, I narrowed my focus to talk about how the drought plan should involve residents more specifically, instead of just talking about general weakness in the plan, and how I didn't think we were doing enough.  In doing this, I was able to make much more pointed arguments, and it was much easier to handle my paper, and narrowed how much research I had to do, which instead would have been much more to also try and understand industrial and agricultural water use as well.
3. I made these changes partially because of a reconsideration of audience, and also because it made the paper shorter, more manageable, and fit better with the platform I was working with.
4. In narrowing my topic, as I mentioned I was able to make more pointed refutations, which helped my credibility.  Before, in my rough draft, I was making more broad statements, without actually specifically bringing up a certain part of the plan, and then proving how it wasn't effective and could be improved.
5. These changes will better address my audience and venue because now my intended audience lines up perfectly with the people who will actually read my article given its venue.  This is an issue that Tucson residents should be concerned about, and it will be Tucson residents who will read the Arizona Daily Star.  By addressing how residents should already be working to reduce their water consumption, I'm making the article more relevant to the audience of the venue, than if the article were directed only at city council members.
6. I didn't do a lot of local revisions concerning sentence structure.  Mostly when I write I have varied enough sentence structure in my first draft that it's not as big as an issue compared to global issues.  However, I did work on cutting wordy parts out of sentences.
7. Local changes don't really help my audience as much as global changes do.  Rather, they just make the article to be a more interesting and well-written read.
8. I didn't really have to reconsider the conventions of my genre when revising, because I had already thought a lot about them while writing the first draft.  Mostly I just had to ensure that my paragraphs where short enough that the article was readable with adequate white space.
9. In reflecting, I realize that most of my revisions are global.  I think this year, it's taken me a while to fully understand what the project is asking, and how I'm going to produce a comprehensive response.  Multiple times, I have believed that what I have written in my first draft has answered what the prompt asked, but then in discussion found out I was lacking critical parts, or could redo my organization.  I'd like to think that by now I am a strong enough writer that I can devote more of my time thinking of ideas and the big picture of the assignment, rather than focus on local revisions involving sentence structure and word choice.

Publishing Public Argumnent

I've finished my Project 3 public argument paper!  It's an opinion piece about the Tucson drought plan, meant to be published in the Arizona Daily Star.

Nikater. "Colorado River 08." 3/15/12 via Wikimedia Commons.
Public Domain License.

View the final project here.

View the rubric guide here.

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

Now that I've received peer reviews, I'm able to begin the revising process and reflect on what needs the most work in my draft.  I peer reviewed Joy and Chad's drafts.

Edal. "Rain on Thassos." 10/28/11 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

1. Zayla Crocker and Austin See reviewed my draft.
2. Zayla's comments about my audience helped me realize that I need to change my audience and Mostly the review was helpful.  move away from what I was originally thinking of.  I realized that the idea of writing to city council members was too restrictive, and that instead I should move towards addressing the citizens more, because that's what I was already beginning to do.  Both of them mentioned that praising Tucson worked against me, because I was hindering my own argument, which was important for me to realize.  I think instead I will leave the praise to the end only, because I want to end on a positive note, since I think that will be most effective.  Austin also commented that he felt this was a mix of a pro argument and a solution argument.  I think that I can make it more specifically a refutation argument by directly mentioning the drought plan that I'm refuting in greater depth.
3. The areas I need to focus on most are audience and argumentation.  As I mentioned earlier, I am shifting my audience, so when I revise my paper, I'll have to be clearer about who my new audience is, and keep them in mind while writing.  Mostly though, I'll be working at how to directly refute points in the drought preparedness plan, which will make this a more effective refutation argument, and add organization to my article.
4. Overall, I can definitely see where I need to improve, which is good.  I have a clear plan of immediate changes I'm going to make that will make my paper stronger.  Having a conference with Mr. Bottai also helped me see where I can work on strengthening my paper.  I'm comfortable with the genre and purpose, so now I will focus mainly on how I am conducting my argument. 

Draft of Public Argument

I've finally finished my first draft of Project 3!  It is an opinion piece concerning drought and reducing water consumption locally, meant for the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson's local print newspaper.  You can view the first draft here.

In terms of feedback, I have a few questions it would be helpful if you could try to address:

• Was the organization clear?  Did the paragraphs flow, and the argument make logical sense?
• What did you think of the headline?
• Was the opening paragraph intriguing enough?
• Did you feel like you understood the situation, or did it need to be explained further?  Did you understand in general why Tucson's drought plan is ineffective?  Was enough background provided?
• Anything else you see not working that needs to be improved upon?

Thanks so much for all your help!

Kjkolb. "Mark Wilmer Pumping Plant." 6/2/06 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Considering Visual Elements

As I continue to work on developing Project 3, I'm now beginning to look at the potential visual components of my work.  I know that on some online versions of newspapers, opinion pieces are accompanied by an image, or enlarged quote.  However, because my issue is so local, I'm looking at just how the Arizona Daily Star formats opinion articles.  The Star, even in its online format, provides only text in its opinion articles.  You can view some examples here and here to get an idea of what I mean.  Because of this, I'm rather limited in terms of visual elements.

Ossanna, Lia. "Tucson.com logo." 11/5/15 via http://tucson.com/

Questions (taken from Writing Public Lives)

1. What color choices best reflect the visual-rhetorical tone of my project?
• Since this is going to be for a newspaper, I will stick to just black and white coloring.  Unfortunately I can't include images, my project will basically be a headline and a bunch of text.
2. How might I vary the fonts used in my project for emphasis, such as the title and body of my project?
• I'm not really sure if I really have the power to change the fonts or have multiple fonts in my project, because since newspapers are uniform, the fonts are probably all going to be the same. That being said, there will be a difference in the size of the headline, so I should make the headline itself catchy and interesting.
3. Are the fonts appropriate to the visual-rhetoric tone of my project?
• Since I'm probably going to end up using just one font, I'm going to pick a standard font that is professional to give the right tone; probably something like Times New Roman.
4. Do your eyes move easily from section to section in the order that you intended?
• Print articles are broken up into small columns, which helps the readers scan the page more easily.  I should replicate this in my draft to make sure the effects are what I want. 
5. Could large blocks of text be broken up more effectively using text boxes, lines, headings or images?
• Newspaper articles also use short paragraphs, so readers feel like they're reading quicker, and progressing through the article.  The best way I can break up large amounts of text is by writing short paragraphs and using line breaks.
6. Is the visual-rhetorical tone of your project consistent?
• This project will be only text, written in a very standard way, so it will be extremely consistent with the tone and the medium it will be published in.

REFLECTION

After looking at Olivia and Bailey's posts, it made me wish that I could have more visual elements for my project as well.  Having images really adds a whole new layer, and gives the project more dimension.  However, because of the platform that I've chosen (Arizona Daily Star), it would make sense for me to add images and other visual elements because the Star provides only text for their opinion articles.  None of them, either online or in print, have any accompanying images.  So to stay true to my platform, I shouldn't spend time focusing on visual elements.  I can't change my platform either, because my topic is so narrow that this is the only one that really makes sense.  But overall it's okay, because I'll just focus on the text and making sure that's strong and speaks for itself.

Project 3 Outline

I've explored a lot about my issue and genre, so now I'm completing an outline to help me write my first draft for Project 3.  You can view my outline here.

Parks, Joe. "Saguaro National Park." 11/3/12 via Flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

Analyzing My Genre

To help decide how to evaluate my project, I'm going to provide a more extensive background on the genre that I've picked, which is op-ed.  First off, here are some examples of my genre:

Example 1 "Is Eastern Europe Really More Racist Than the West?" (NY Times)
Example 2 "Thinks religion makes society less violent?  Think again." (LA Times)
Example 3 "The GOP's ridiculous debate demands should be rejected" (Washington Post)
Example 4 "Smarter copyright laws could stop the next VW scandal" (Wired)
Example 5 "Why Asian Americans Don't Vote Republican" (Newsweek)

Ossanna, Lia. "Screenshot of NY Times opinion page." 11/4/15 via
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

Social Context

• This genre is typically set in newspapers and magazines.  The examples I have come from LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Wired, and Newsweek.  Op-ed sections are more common in newspapers.
• Op-eds can cover just about any topic.  Usually opinion pieces stem from an event that creates controversy or has multiple opinions and views to it.  These events are generally popular in the news, and generate passionate dialogue, some of which is expressed through op-eds.
• Op-eds are written by people who are not affiliated with the magazine or newspaper publishing them.  They are guest writers, and usually knowledgeable about the topic.  The examples I have come from prestigious and well-known newspapers and magazines, so the people writing the guests opinions are generally professors at distinguished universities.
• This genre is used to promote a certain viewpoint about an issue.  All of the examples I have are a reaction to an event or series of events.  The Newsweek op-ed attempts to describe why a trend in voting is occurring; some op-eds give opinions on why something is happening, while others debate the pros or cons of a viewpoint, idea, or policy.  These op-eds are used to reach a wide audience and influence the readers of that newspaper/magazine.

Rhetorical Patterns

• Op-eds generally must give some background on the subject, because the readers may not be experts, whereas the authors are more likely to have a wider knowledge of the topic.  This can be done by including direct quotes about the issue from other sources.  Since op-eds are relatively short, they must be deliberate and to the point; everything in the article must clearly have a purpose and serve to persuade the audience.  Some op-ed pieces are focused more on promoting their own ideas than refuting opposing ones, so thus leave out details about conflicting views or explanations.
• The types of rhetorical strategies used depends on the particular op-ed itself.  However, I did notice in my examples that pathos and logos seemed to be more prominent than ethos.  In the Newsweek op-ed, the author uses graphs and statistics to show how Asian Americans are becoming increasingly Democratic, which is a logos appeal.  The New York Times article opens with a powerful image of innocent refugees who are blocked from seeking shelter in Europe, an appeal to pathos.
• Op-eds generally have striking titles to grab the attention of readers.  The LA Times headline, "Think religion makes society less violent?  Think again" at once presents a very strong and controversial opinion.  Personally, this intrigued me, which is why I used it as an example.  The Washington Post headline is another example of inflammatory and charged language: "The GOP's ridiculous debate demands should be rejected."  The titles have to convey the message of the opinion in just one line.  Op-eds generally then begin with an opening powerful image, or some more background information on the issue.  After a distilled explanation is given, the author moves into giving his/her opinions.  The conclusion then leaves the reader thinking about the opinion given, such as with the NY Times article that stresses "demonizing Eastern Europeans" is not the solution.
• Like all good writing, op-eds must have varying sentence structures and types to keep the article interesting.  Some op-eds do use questions more than other genres, because questions engage the reader by asking them directly to think about certain things.  This is the main distinguishing trait in terms of sentence structure.
• Op-eds are written with a slightly informal tone.  The authors talk more directly to the reader.  The passionate tone of op-eds make them naturally more riveting and sometimes inflammatory.

Rhetorical Patterns and Social Context

• The genre includes people who read that newspaper or magazine, and who is interested in the topics those op-ed pieces explore.  This genre excludes people who don't read newspapers/magazines, or people who are offended or disagree with the opinion given.
• This genre encourages both the reader and writer to be extremely engaged in the text and the issue explored.  Writers want their readers to rethink an issue, or reflect upon a viewpoint or idea.  Writers strive not just to enlighten their readers and bring about awareness, but also to impose upon them a clear opinion.
• The values and beliefs presented in opinion pieces vary drastically depending on the piece and the author.  In general though, it is assumed that the reader is engaged and interested in the topic, and probably has beliefs similar to those presented in the article.  I read editorial pieces because I am interested in the topic, and usually because I agree with the position and want to see how by reading this article, I can strengthen my own argument about that topic.
• Editorials are concerned with controversial content.  What that content is specifically varies greatly.  Usually editorials revolve around current news and issues, due to where they are published.  Editorials are concerned with issues that already have somewhat of an established audience with different viewpoints.

REFLECTION

I read Olivia and Joki's blog posts.  Joki is doing a text-based argument, similar to me, but Olivia had the creative idea of doing a cooking video.  As I saw when many people shared in class today, lots of us want to take the chance to move away from making our arguments through text, and instead find another media.  It's going to be really cool, the kind of diversity that this project produces.  I however, am just sticking with text, because I enjoy writing and find it to be one of my strengths.  Even though it would be fun to try and make a video or something, I think I would have no idea where to start or how to create what I wanted to, and it would turn into way too much work.

Considering Types

To narrow down what my public argument will be like, I'm considering which type of public argument type will be best for me to accomplish the purpose of my argument.

stillwellmike. "Saguaro National Park, Tucson, AZ." 3/11/12 via Flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

In looking at the different types of arguments, I'm seeing that a refutation argument might be most useful.  I want to prove that the current Tucson drought plan is not comprehensive enough, and doesn't thoroughly consider the long term effects of drought.  In doing this, I would analyze the drought plan and point out the weaknesses.  Like the exercise we did in class (although we didn't get to the refutation part), I would point out the ineffective points of the current proposal that exists.

Another possibility I'm considering is a proposal argument.  Because I want the drought plan to be changed, I could go about that by proposing my own ideas of what would be effective instead.  However, I don't think that I'm experienced and knowledgeable enough to make a plan that was as comprehensive as it needs to be, since I don't know a lot about water law and policy yet (I haven't yet taken those classes).

A causal argument or a proposal argument don't seem like they would be a very helpful way for me to present and organize my argument.  The cause of why I think the current drought plan is unsuitable doesn't really matter; what matters is that it needs to be fixed.  And finding the pros and cons also doesn't really make sense either.  Lastly, an evaluative argument is the opposite of what I want to do, because I don't want to praise and support the plan, I want to change it.  Of course, that doesn't mean I want to attack the current plan totally, and I understand that even the fundamental fact we have a drought plan is important and not something that should be taken for granted.  The general idea of the plan is good.  The only problem is, it doesn't go in depth enough.  So because of this, a refutation argument would probably be most suitable for my argument.


REFLECTION

Both Austin and Chris are considering refutation arguments like me.  I think that refutation arguments might be common for this assignment, because it's easy to find things that we're not happy about to make a strong argument against.  Personally, I'm considering to lean towards refutation, but I'm wondering if I could do a mix of a refutation and a proposal.  Because although I am not experienced enough to give highly detailed advice, I do have some suggestions, and I want to be able to propose some solutions instead of just being critical.  Because I've actually talked with the mayor, and I know that they are trying to make water conservation a priority, but it might be hard to take drastic action.  I also want to acknowledge that Tucson does have the right idea, and so I don't want to be totally harsh and attacking the city council.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

I'm continuing to developing my understanding of my rhetorical situation for the public argument I will be making regarding Tucson's drought preparedness.  In doing this, I will examine my audience, the genre of my argument, and how to handle possible reactions to my argument.

Howcheng. "Catalinas and Tuscon AZ." 4/24/06 via Wikimedia Commons.
Public Domain License.

AUDIENCE

My audience is the Tucson city council.  From what I can tell reading their current drought preparedness plan, they seem to be informed somewhat about the issue, but not in deeply scientific terms, so it's important for them to gain at least somewhat of that knowledge.  As I mentioned before in my "Audience and Genre" post, local political leaders will value many things that do not have much to do with environmental issues, such as managing the local economy and preparing the city budget.

However, they still should value the water resources Tucson has, because water is a huge part of everyday life, and with a limited supply we all would be forced to function much differently.  Overall, the city council must effectively run, take care of, and improve the city, so anything that affects the city's well being becomes an interest of the city council.  However, as I discussed earlier, their priorities might not favor water issues as much as other problems.

 Because the city council must manage the city's well being, anything they will take interest in my argument.  Depending on how persuasive I am, the city council could take action and revise their plan.  In being persuasive, one of the best techniques might be to present statistics about Tucson's water consumption and reliance on the Colorado River through Central Arizona Project, and then respectively statistics about how quickly the Colorado River is shrinking.

It also might be effective to point out exactly how long the water that Tucson has stored will last, because I think it's misleading and actually will support Tucson for a very short amount of time given our current water consumption habits.  In the way of visual elements, perhaps pictures that highlight the shrinkage of Lake Mead, or show how CA is affected by the drought could be helpful.


GENRE

I'm sticking with the genres that I outlined in my "Audience and Genre" post, which include either a letter to city council, or an editorial for the newspaper.

For the editorial, I would aim to have it published in the Arizona Daily Star, since that's the local newspaper for Tucson.  An editorial would express my views while addressing the general public and city council, both of which will be affected by drought and water regulations.  Editorials are formal, but can be somewhat informal, especially when particularly impassioned.  It would probably be most helpful to use pathos and logos.  Pathos is a good way to get people to care about an issue, and making it clear that drought will have emotional impacts is important.  Logos provides powerful statistics that will prove how dire the situation is.

Editorials usually contain only text and no visual elements.  Because the issue I'm looking at is so narrow, the examples I've found are from the LA Times and therefore aren't related to Tucson specifically, but are instead about the CA drought.  You can view them here and here.

A letter sent directly to city council would be effective because it would go directly to the people that would be in charge of making the changes.  The letter would need to be formal and effectively convey that the drought plan needs to be more comprehensive and consider further long term effects and solutions.  To do this, some pathos and mostly logos appeals would be necessary.  Statistics that I mentioned earlier, such as the amount of water Tucson consumes annually or monthly, would be important to include, and stress the consequences of these numbers.

It would also be important to establish that the fact our water tables aren't dropping is less reassuring than it seems, because we're getting out water from the Colorado River, which is shrinking and therefore soon the amount of water we are allocated will be curtailed.  Perhaps a simple graph depicting these statistics would be useful, but too many visual elements could easily become overwhelming.  And again, because this topic is so narrow, the best examples I could find of letters are not related to this controversy; letters like these aren't usually published.  You can view the examples I found here and here.


RESPONSES/ACTIONS

Some positive actions I would like to see as a result of my public argument include:

• Open dialogue about the issue; raised awareness
• A more comprehensive drought plan
• Water regulations put in place to help the city begin reducing its water consumption

Some negative reactions I might receive (and how I would respond to them) include:

• Apathy -- people don't believe that drought and water shortage are a serious concern
• Response: Water shortage is a legitimate concern and we will have to face the consequences of our overconsumption very soon -- California as example
• Concern, but it's not a top priority
• Response: We can't continue to push off this issue because we're going to reach the low levels of the CO River that mean we're allocated less water (that's inevitable), so if we begin thinking about how to reduce our water intake now, the change will be less abrupt, and maybe we will be able to keep our higher allocations of water for longer
• The current drought plan is adequate and enough
• Response: The most drastic measures the current plan propose aren't going to be enough; the beginning steps only include declaring a drought, without actually instituting any real changes.  The best way to solve this issue will happen if everyone begins making a few little changes, and the quicker we can start that, the better.

Analyzing Purpose

I've begun considering what I want to say specifically and how I want to add to the issue of Tucson's drought preparedness.  I need to figure out what the purpose of my public argument will be.  Since this is a pretty narrow issue, there's not a lot of dialogue already out there, so I have a bit of freedom in terms of what I can contribute, which is helpful.

Tucsonre. "Saguaro Sunset." 7/19/10 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

The goal of my public argument is to get Tucson to change its drought plan to make it more comprehensive.  I've decided that I'm going to pick the audience of the Tucson city council, so I'll be addressing who would consider rewriting the current plan.  I need to prove at least that the current plan isn't suitable.  I'm still unsure as to if I could offer a clear solution, though.

The most plausible reactions to my public argument are either that 1) nothing changes, or that 2) the plan is revised.  The extent to how much the plan is revised will depend on my convincing my argument is, and how much money it might cost to spend time changing the plan.  It's not very plausible that the plan would be rewritten entirely, or be able to prepare for what might happen in 100 years, because that's not reasonable, and we don't even know what will happen in 100 years.  It is however, more plausible to change it to something that plans for what could happen more like 15 or 20 years in advance, instead of just 5 to 10, which is what the current plan seems to be capable of handling.

The effects of revising the plan could be raising more awareness of the problem, in ways such as realizing what's happening in California is a pretty accurate depiction of what could happen to Arizona in the near future.  Depending on how the plan is revised, other effects could be how Tucson allocates water, or how much water residential areas and companies are allowed to use.  The public might be required to reduce their water consumption either immediately, or sooner and perhaps more severely than was originally planned for.

I've already identified the audience I want to address.  It would be good if I could find out specifically who wrote the current drought plan, and if there is some kind of existing committee that deals with these issues.  It would be helpful to become more aware about the specific people in the city council involved, to narrow down the audience further.

Analyzing Context

Since I've established my audience, I'm going to explore the context of the issue in order to fully understand the rhetorical situation of my issue.  My issue is very narrow, focusing on the effectiveness of Tucson's drought preparedness, and so the perspectives related are valid, but not widely held by most people, since this issue doesn't affect the majority of the population.  Here is a link to my annotated bibliography, so you can get a better idea of the issue I'm addressing.

Georgemakar. "Green Earth Moon." 4/5/15 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The different perspectives involved in this issue come from the different people that are involved.  There is the political sector which must write the rules of how to handle drought, and how to interpret and work with the water laws that apply to Tucson and Arizona.  The political sphere must consider what is feasible and economically reasonable.  There are also those who are concerned with the future of Tucson's water resources, and want to see a more comprehensive drought plan written to ensure that we are prepared for the future, and not just what will happen in the next few decades.

The political sphere has different priorities than those concerned about environmental issues.  There are many different issues in Tucson these leaders must deal with, and so they are less inclined to spend as much time or thought writing a suitable drought plan.  They most likely believe that the current plan is sufficient; it at least meets the requirements that declared Tucson must have a drought plan.  People concerned about environmental issues certainly want to push the issue of water resources towards the top of the priority list, and believe that what is currently in place is inadequate.  These people are more inclined to think long term about the issue, since they don't have all the other concerns not related to the environment that the local political leaders have.

Between both groups however, there is some common ground.  Both groups acknowledge that drought is an issue that needs to be addressed.  The extent to which it needs to be addressed is where they differ.  Both groups are concerned with issues larger than themselves; the political sphere needs to serve its constituents, and the environmental sector is concerned with how humans are impacting the environment.  These groups also both need each other to work together and address the issue.  Government involvement is one of the best ways to draw attention to our nation's water shortage.  And the government needs the support of scientists to understand what's threatening in our future and what we can do about it.

Again, most of the ideological differences come down to priorities.  While there are some politicians that fundamentally  don't believe in climate change, or refuse to do anything about the issue, the local leaders of Tucson aren't like that.  They realize it's an issue that will affect the people the serve, so they want to address it.  However, there is some disconnect between how informed these leaders might be about the sustainability (or lack thereof) of Tucson's water practices.

The political sphere in Tucson hasn't asked their constituents to do anything yet about reducing water consumption, because there hasn't been an official drought declared in Tucson.  In California, new regulations have been put in place to conserve how much water is used through things like irrigation (residents are only allowed to water their lawns/wash their cars on certain days of the week).  This is because there has been a declared drought in CA.  Until that happens in Tucson, there won't be any regulations.  As for environmentalists, they urge supporters to do anything from something as simple as turning off the water when they brush their teeth, to anything that requires much more effort, such as rainwater harvesting or installing composting toilets.

Obviously I share an environment-centered perspective, because I'm very concerned about resource management (hence my major). I believe that people should be more aware of all the water they consume, and that America is consuming water faster than the natural water cycle.  I think it should be part of one's character to care about the future of the environment; the idea that Americans have the right to consume endlessly -- whether that be food, water, oil, or anything else -- is a self-righteous and privileged attitude that we need to put a stop to.

Of course, it doesn't mean that those who don't put saving the environment as their top priority are bad people.  It's important for me to understand the opposing view, because I need to understand the situation fully before I cast judgement.  However, will be fatal if we continue to put off our problems as the Colorado River shrinks, and we begin to receive significantly less water.  The ultimate danger is procrastination: we shouldn't deceive ourselves and pretend we have years and years before we must deal with these issues.  We must begin understanding the gravity of the situation today.


REFLECTION

I looked at Olivia and Grace's posts, and I noticed that all of us identified two main perspectives, which are basically pro and con.  That got me wondering if we're leaving out a group that maybe isn't as dominant but still contributes to the issue.  I realized that in terms of the issue I'm dealing with, there is also the group of citizens of Tucson who really aren't interested in the drought plan at all, probably mostly because it isn't something that's crossed their minds.  I think they could also be hindering change, simply by ignorance.  Since many people might not recognize this issue as significant, it makes the issue seem less legitimate.  However, through my argument I need to prove that the general population of Tucson needs to care about this issue too, because we all will have to live with the consequences.

Audience and Genre

The next step is for me to understand my rhetorical situation for this project.  Here, I've brainstormed some ideas regarding audience, and come up with examples of media types that would be best for those audiences.  Since my topic is pretty narrow, the options of who the audience is are pretty limited, and revolve around local people in Tucson, who would be most interested in understanding if Tucson is adequately prepared for drought.

Ossanna, Lia. "Screenshot of online Star editorial." 10/24/15 via
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/ua-faculty-staff-pay-far-behind-market
-rate/article_26063c1e-e44b-581a-8eb5-3a956208ed45.html

The first potential audience I have is political city figures who are in charge of drafting the drought preparedness plans.  I could make a public argument indicating where their current plan is weak, and how it should be fixed.  This way I'm speaking directly to the people who are in charge of implementing the most change.  City council people have a responsibility to serve the people of their community, and I would be addressing a critical issue, so they would be interested.

The first place I could publish or present my research would be in the form of a letter to my council people in charge of the issue.  The letter would include the important points of my research distilled into language that those without a strong background would still understand.  This way I would be directly contacting the council members in a typical way most citizens communicate with their city council.  Examples of letters to city council members can be found here, here and here.

The second place I could publish my argument would be the op-ed section of the Arizona Daily Star.  Since this is a local newspaper, those reading it would be affected by the issue, and informed that I was attempting to communicate with the city council about the issue.  For an op-ed piece, I would have to explain how this issue is pertinent to all of Tucson and worth spending time thinking about.  I would have to connect the idea more closely to the general public of Tucson.  Op-ed pieces generally share firm beliefs, giving some background about the past as well as describing what the current situation is.  Op-ed pieces address less of how to solve a problem, and instead are used to bring awareness about an issue.  Examples of op-ed pieces from the Star can be found here and here (note that I don't endorse the beliefs presented in this article).

As for the second potential audience, I could focus on engaging the local academic community that would be interested about the environmental effects and conservation strategies currently in place.  These people would most likely consist of professors in the hydrology department at the U of A.

In talking to these UA professors, I could go about talking the issue in a different way and present the information in a video format, with narration and shots of relevant parts, like Tucson Water or the Tucson Aqueduct.  The purpose of the video would be to prove that drought preparedness is an important issue to focus on.  This video could then be used to inform the public about the issue.  National Geographic makes videos like this; examples can be found here and here.  However, this it is unlikely I will execute this idea, because I have little skill in making videos or animation, and prefer writing.

Another way I could communicate with the academic sphere is by a short research proposal.  This wouldn't be as extensive as normal research proposals, but would rather focus on stating the issue at hand, some background knowledge, and then ask for help from these professors to expand this idea into an actual research proposal and plan.  I won't have enough information to actually compose the research plan myself, and that's not really a public argument, but instead I could sort of write a proposal to a research proposal.  Examples of short research proposals can be found here and here.

As an end note, I was trying to be more creative with my last two ideas regarding my second audience, but in reality those ideas will probably be more difficult to execute, and might not come across as clear public arguments.  The two ideas I had before for the first audience are probably what I will begin exploring.

Project 3 Annotated Bibliography

Now that I've come up with some specific research questions for Project 3, I've looked at some sources to gather the information.  I've complied an annotated bibliography to organize my research, which can be viewed here.

Tfinc. "Citation needed stickers." 2/26/13 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

My sources will probably look different than most people's, because I took information from government resources and legal papers rather than general sources.  Because I'm looking at specifically Tucson, the area is too small and the issue hasn't received enough attention to generate any kind of useful information via general sources.  However, I'm choosing to do this project about Tucson, because I want to know about the water rights and plan for the city that I live in.  I found how to specifically cite government documents from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Narrowing My Focus

Since I collected a variety of questions, I need to narrow down my focus to something manageable and specific.  Overall the topic I will be looking at is how Arizona has prepared for drought.  The main question is, What steps have been taken to prepare for water shortages in Arizona (specifically Tucson)?  To answer this question, I'm going to have to answer a few more questions that I came up with in the last post.

XcepticZP. "Arizona cap canal." 3/25/08 via
Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain License.

The first question is What are the water rights concerning the Colorado River and other major water resources for Arizona?

I know from my basic knowledge about water rights in the western part of the US, it's based on seniority.  Arizona doesn't have high seniority, so we will be one of the first states to lose water rights, and therefore our water source will be greatly reduced.  Understanding this in deeper detail is important for knowing how lowering water levels will affect Arizona, and will explain the need for Arizona to have backup plan.

The second question is How has this issue been discussed in the political realm?

It's really important to understand how how the political sphere has prepared for water shortages, because they have jurisdiction of the water.  I need to investigate how local political figures such as the mayor and city council people are passing regulations that relate to water shortages.  I know that Tucson has some water stored, but I don't know how long that will last, and I don't know how far in advance the local government has planned for.

Questions About Controversy

For my next project, I'll be working off the topic that I covered somewhat Project 2: drought and water consumption.  I want to address the issues that are happening locally and in the state of Arizona.  To start off my research process, I'm generating some questions about the controversy that address things I'll need to know to construct my own public argument.

Potter, Chris. "3D Blue Question Mark." 4/30/15 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

WHO

1. Who are some of the biggest agriculture companies (Monsanto, etc), and are their practices sustainable in terms of water consumption?
2. What city in Arizona consumes the most amount of water per capita?  Why?
3. Besides Central Arizona Project, who supplies the other main sources of water to Arizona?

WHAT

1. What are the basic statistics about how much water Tucson consumes, how much is in our stores, and how much is in the external resources?
2. What are the water rights concerning the Colorado River and other major water suppliers?
3. How is Arizona prepared to face serious water shortages?  What plans have been made?

WHEN

1. When were the most recent water laws written?
2. When was the Colorado River at its fullest?
3. When was the Central Arizona Project created?  What were the conditions of this time to drive the need for such a large project that imported water into Arizona?

WHERE

1. What percentage of Arizona homes does the Central Arizona Project supply water for?
2. What cities in Arizona have been receiving the smallest amount of rainfall in the last decade?  How have these cities dealt with this?
3.  How is water usage incorporated into Arizona education?

HOW

1. How has recent news been covered for the topic of water usage in Arizona?  How is the issue portrayed?
2. What is the general knowledge/belief about Central Arizona Project and water consumption in Arizona?
3. How has this topic been discussed in the political realm of the media?  

Reflection on Project 2

Now that I've finished Project 2, I have a chance to reflect a bit on my revision process.  I answered questions regarding revision from Writing Public Lives.

Kim, Jonathan. "Writing." 3/26/07 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommerical 2.0 Generic License.

I specifically revised my conclusion, introduction, and last two body paragraphs the most.  The exercises in revising my conclusion and introduction helped me a lot, because I didn't realize how weak those paragraphs were until I saw examples of successful ones.  The last two body paragraphs I could tell were weaker, because they were confusing and not as precise and strong as the first two body paragraphs of my essay.

In reconsidering global revisions, I changed the annotations that addressed my specific audience of incoming freshman most.  I realized that I need to be more explicit and thorough than I was before.  I needed to talk directly to my audience, not just allude advice.  Based on this, I also had to explain in depth what a rhetorical analysis is, and what a rhetorical situation is.  I added a section at the beginning that introduced what a rhetorical situation is, the purpose of this paper, and explicitly stated that immediately following was an example essay.  I think that helped clear things up a lot.

Talking in class about what the purpose of our papers is helped me alter my paper a lot.  I realized that while I was writing a rhetorical analysis fine, I wasn't totally answering the project instructions.  I had to make these changes to satisfy what the project was actually asking for.  In terms of the pure rhetorical analysis I wrote as an example, I knew from my first draft that not everything would be perfect, so I expected I would have to revise some body paragraphs.

Making my purpose clear at the beginning of the paper initially established my credibility in a way I was lacking before.  With the section at the beginning that explains what the paper is about, I establish that I'm in environmental science, and that I'm qualified to talk about rhetorical analyses in that field.  From there, I hope that it's clear from my annotations that my essay is strong, which will strengthen my credibility.

Having the beginning section and better annotations is definitely going to help guide my readers.  They'll understand right away what they should be looking for in the example essay, and the annotations will help show them how each part of the essay supports the thesis and main argument of the example essay.  My annotations have clearer instruction, which will help my readers focus on what's important, so once they've read my paper they will understand how to write a rhetorical analysis.

There weren't as many local revisions as there were global ones.  I'd like to think this is because I'm a fairly strong writer, I write regularly (and not just for this class), so already my sentences were fairly varied and interesting.  However, of course nothing was perfect from the first draft, and I had to take out a lot of wordy sentences, or sections that weren't as relevant to the essay as they should have been.

These local changes weren't as big of a deal as my global changes, but I think they will help establish my credibility as a strong writer.  They will also set a good example of what a rhetorical analysis should look like (which was my goal), because of course in all writing proper syntax and style is key.

I knew from the beginning that I wanted to have annotations, because that would make it clear what was the rhetorical analysis, and what was the instructional part directed at my readers.  When we were talking in class about what needed to be included in the intro and conclusions, I had to disregard some of that, since my rhetorical analysis was a pure rhetorical example, and I wasn't addressing my audience in the essay itself, but rather the annotations.  However, I still had to include all of the elements we were discussing in class, it's just they were added in annotations, and not the intro and conclusion themselves.

I definitely feel better about this project than Project 1.  I think that I've become a stronger writer, and found that this project was easier for me than the previous one.  Thinking about essays I've written in high school, I can see I've improved noticeably in my writing skills, which is good.  Since my outline was detailed, drafting wasn't too hard, and revision wasn't as tough as I thought it might be.  It's nice to see my improvements as a writer, and feel that writing academic essays has become much more natural to me.


REFLECTION

After reading Grace's and Olivia's posts, I found that a lot of us didn't quite understand the assignment, so much of the revision stemmed from that.  I think that most of us were focused on writing a rhetorical analysis, and not the added part of the project, which was to address the incoming freshman in our field.  It seemed many of us thought that was possible to do indirectly, but really being more explicit was most effective.

I found it interesting that Olivia got a lot of use from her peer editing comments she received.  Personally, most of my changes came from the exercise in revising the intro and conclusion; the comments I received weren't super helpful.  They did help with some local revisions, but in terms of global revisions, I don't think that at the time any of us were really confident enough to give large and global revision advice, because we didn't totally understand the project.

Project 2 Publication

I'm finally done with the final draft of my paper for Project 2!  You can view it here.

Ishrona. "Moving waters." 8/13/06 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

The first section is a direct address to my audience; an example essay follows.  Remember that the comments I've made are very important and very much part of my project.  The comments are there to address the explanatory aspect of my paper.

Punctuation, Part 2

In finishing up revising my essay, I've reviewed a few more punctuation topics to make sure I'm using punctuation correctly throughout my whole essay.  The additional punctuation topics I chose are semicolons, colons, and apostrophes.

Jelte. "Semicolon." 6/12/05 via Wikimedia Commons.
Public Domain License.

I've used semicolons before, but it was only a few years ago that I started getting used to them.  Before, I would often use a comma where a semicolon should have gone, or perhaps used a dash, neither of which are really correct.  It was helpful to see the list of conjunctive adverbs and transitional phrases, because that spelled out very clearly when semicolons should often be used.  The one thing that in this section that I had never learned before was the rule stating not to use a semicolon after but.  For me, that sounds natural in longer sentences, so it was good to see that rule.

I find colons to be more straightforward than semicolons because they are not confused with commas easily.  I didn't know that colons were supposed to be used after a salutation in a letter (although that's not relevant for this class so much, it's still good to know).  I'm comfortable breaking sentences up with a colon, especially in the ways of introducing a quotation, or giving a summary/explanation.  Colons help vary sentence structure, which can be very useful.

I think by now most of us have mastered how to use apostrophes for contractions and possessive words.  However, it's important to note that apostrophes are not used for plural abbreviations, numbers or letters, because that's a mistake that I commonly see.  Recently I began to understand the difference between who's and whose, but that's another mistake that is also common.  It's good to know these rules for certain, so I don't second guess myself when I see a common error.

Copy for Paragraph Analysis 2

Now that I've revised my introduction and conclusion, it's time to look at the body paragraphs.  I went through each paragraph and noted how well I was following the paragraph structure Rules for Writers detailed, and where my paragraphs were lacking something, confusing, or off topic.  You can view the copy of my draft with these annotations here.

ClkerFreeVectorImages. "Text, Writing, Edit, Documentation."
2012 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

Overall, I found that my first two paragraphs were very strong and don't need much revising.  They have an established main point, and use evidence to illustrate that point, and analysis to explain the illustrations.  It's clear what these paragraphs are trying to establish, and I think they did a good job in doing so.  I also found that in general, I have pretty good transitions between my paragraphs.

However, the last two paragraphs definitely need more work.  They are more confusing and less organized than the first two.  While they have a main point, sometimes the rest of what follows doesn't exactly relate to that point.  The ideas I have are good and workable, I just need to improve how I organize them.  There are also some areas of awkward and wordy sentences I can fix.  It's good to have my first two paragraphs as a clear example of what I should be striving for in my second two paragraphs.

Revised Conclusion

Since I completely revised my introduction, it's time to do the same for my conclusion.  Keeping in mind Student's Guide strategies and tips, I rewrote my conclusion in an attempt to make it more effective and striking.  You can view my original and new conclusion here.

EWikist. "The End Book." 8/23/10 via Wikimedia Commons.
Public Domain License.

My new conclusion uses the tactic of "Circling Back," which gives it a more cohesive feel.  I open by going back to the new narrative I use in the new introduction.  This helps create an image that can be visualized more easily, as opposed to my original conclusion, which didn't have a lot of imagery.  In the original conclusion I tried to answer the question "So what?" as well as imply the "Looking Foward" tactic, but I think that those are both more effective in my new conclusion, because I framed them within the context of the intro's narrative.  I'm not sure if I like the very last sentences, so I'll probably need to revise those some more.

Revised Introduction

In class we looked at examples of introductions and discussed how to make an introduction effective, that keeps the reader interested and wanting to read further.  Since my introduction needed some work and didn't contain all of the elements a strong introduction does, I revised it.  Click here to access Google Doc with both the old and the revised introductions.

geralt. "Road, Start, Beginning, Intention." 1/17/06 via Pixabay.
Public Domain Licence.

The main thing about the new introduction is that it uses imagery and a narrative feel to hook the reader.  I tried to create an image that was both compelling and stressed how far water must travel to reach residential areas, and how those water reserves are shrinking.  From there, I transitioned to my thesis statement, which didn't really change that much because I felt it was pretty good to begin with.  I'm still unsure about the narrative I tried to tell, so I'll probably revise it some more, but I can definitely tell it's better from the original.  The original was far too dry and had facts that were interesting to me, but probably not to anyone else.

Reflection on Project 2

In the process of revising my rhetorical analysis, I will be reflecting on where I am in the drafting and revising process, and what improvements and work I still have to complete.  For the peer review, I edited Chad and Zayla's essays.

M1-L3C. "Conclusion." 11/27/13 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

My thesis is clear, located at the end of my introductory paragraph.  It is more specific than just saying ethos/pathos/logos were used.  Specifically, I mention how the sequential explanation, historical facts, and framing the issue are all effect strategies the author used.

I'm organizing my essay in sort of the way that the author organized her's.  That is, I'm following along and analyzing each strategy I'm addressing in the order they're presented in the article.  Each paragraph has a central idea that links back to the thesis, and should be clear from the first or first few sentences.

I analyzed specific instances of pathos and logos, while also talking about the audience.  I talked about how when the author tailors her arguments to her audience, she's the most effective, which ties together the strategies she uses, and how she's aware of her rhetorical situation.  I could talk about the context some more, though.  I'm trying to figure out how to give my audience enough understanding of the issue without going into too much depth.  Originally I had more details in the introduction, but how that I've rewritten my introduction, some of the facts I had are gone.  I might have to work these facts into the body paragraphs to ensure that the issue is clear and the readers are properly informed on relevant background knowledge.

I definitely talked about how the strategies in the article related to the author's specific audience.  I evaluated these strategies' effectiveness, and concluded that when the author was clearly conscious of her audience and keeping them in mind, she was most memorable and persuasive.  I talked about the effect that the different strategies or instances should have on the reader, but I could probably go into more depth.

In every paragraph I have clear evidence that I then analyze.  When I can I quote directly, but sometimes I paraphrase.  The analysis should be explaining how the example is relevant, but I could go back and double check to make sure.

My conclusion needs work.  I'm not sure that I'm resonating enough with my readers, and making it clear that my issue is important and deserves attention.  I've sort of gotten at it, but water shortage and resources are such a crucial part of daily life that I could probably be more dramatic/memorable, so my conclusion and essay sticks with my readers more.

Punctuation, Part 1

Part of the revising process is polishing syntax and punctuation.  Here, I explore three different types of punctuation and how they should be correctly used: unnecessary commas, quotation marks, and other punctuation.

Ossanna, Lia. "Screenshot of 'comma' definition." 10/15/15 via
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&
espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=define%20comma&es_th=1

For the most part, I am already familiar with most of the instances the Unnecessary Commas section explained.  I already know the practice of not inserting a comma that will separate a verb from its subject or object, and how to use commas correctly in the context of lists.  However, it was good for me to learn that I shouldn't put a comma between dependent clauses, or a comma that will change the meaning of the sentence.  Usually I go with what feels natural in a speaking pattern, but that doesn't always apply to writing, because it can actually be awkward or incorrect.  Understanding these rules with their specific parameters clears up when to use a comma in each situation.  I should examine a sentence and see how the meaning is changed, or if there is a dependent clause before inserting a comma.

Again, a lot of the quotation conventions I already knew, but there were a few that were good for me to review, and a few that clarified things I didn't know.  For example, I wasn't aware that quotations shouldn't be used around slang or to justify humor.  For me, that kind of emphasis on those words seemed natural and acceptable.  It was also helpful to review how to introduce quotes, especially blended quotes, because sometimes making the transition into the quote is awkward.

I wasn't sure what the difference between using parentheses or colons were as opposed to a dash.  Dashes that offset a list emphasize what's inside the list, whereas parentheses are for minor details or supplements.  It's also good to know that colons are more formal than dashes.  I think I sort of realized this without knowing, because previously I used to use dashes more, but I noticed that they weren't as common in textbooks or academic writing, so I started using colons to introduce lists.


REFLECTION

In the drafts I looked at, most of them had the proper punctuation conventions that I reviewed for this post.  We seem to understand how to properly use punctuation within quotes, which is good.  However,  Zayla had a tendency to use double quotes inside double quotes, instead of using the single quote, which I noted.  For example, here is a quote she used in her draft:

Although the economy for the country is beginning to open a bit the writer does not forget to add an unforgettable quote “ [Mr Kim, the textile manager] has no qualms about making pants to be worn by men going to work in “imperialist aggressor” countries,” His only interests were in increasing the profit for the capital of North Korea. Fifield (2015).

Here, Zayla shows proper use of brackets.  She's modifying the quote to clarify who Mr. Kim is for her reader.  She also has a signal phrase.  However, she needs to eliminate the space between the opening quotation mark and the bracket beginning the quote, and change the double quotation marks around "imperialist aggressor" to signal quotes.  She also should have a period at the end of the quote after "countries" and not a comma, since that sentence is done.

Additionally, looking back on Chad's draft, I realize there's one place of potential discrepancy.  Here is the excerpt from his draft:

He supposedly thinks that if he presents this complicated debate that has been raging for years as having an “obvious” answer, the reader will be comfortable forming an opinion on this “simple” subject.

I think the quotes around "obvious" and "simple" should be removed, because they aren't actually direct quotes from the article, and instead are used to mock the author's beliefs.  However, I'm not entirely sure if that is correct.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

I've completed the first draft of my rhetorical analysis!  You can view it here.

PublicDomainPictures. "Splashing, Splash, Aqua, Water."
2013 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

In terms of peer review, I have a couple of requests.  You'll see that there are already comments I've made.  These are annotations that will help my audience (incoming freshman in my field) understand how to write a rhetorical analysis.  So instead of commenting yourself for peer review, please leave your suggestions in a paragraph/list at the end of the document.  This will keep the document from drowning in comments.  Also, don't worry about the incomplete citations, I'm going to get that together as well.

In peer editing, could you focus on:

• Is there enough analysis and not just summary?
• Is the topic of each paragraph clear?
• Are the transitions clear?
• Does the analysis make sense?
• Are there any parts that aren't relevant and should be removed?
• Do the annotations make sense? (you can reply directly to my comments, if you'd like)
• Anything else that isn't working for the draft and should be revised?

Thanks so much for all your help!