Appealing To Time Response

Emily’s blog caught my attention because of the first sentence. “In the chapter “Appeals to Time” in the book Appeals in Modern Rhetoric, M. Jimmie Killingsworth discusses how classical and modern rhetoric utilize appeals to time in order to perpetuate meaning and purpose in a discourse" (Blog). I completely agree with this statement. It is the perfect summation of what is explained in Killingsworth’s article. In the very beginning of the article while discussing time he states, “It focuses an audience’s attention by concentrating on a particular moment in time” (Killingsworth 38). Kairos is also another topic discussed that I believe is important in writing for time. “Kairos has to do with finding the right argument at the right moment” (Killingsworth 38).

In Handa’s The Multimediated Rhetoric of the Internet, I also found the concept of finding the right time or period of time for an article. Emily discusses remediation of texts, as in making a text work for the time that you are writing for. With the growth of the internet, we need to pay attention to who we are writing for and what type of writing they will understand and comprehend. Handa states that, “Because they capture students’ eyes and minds, the sites consciously and subconsciously reinforce particular values through their rhetorical displays while also reflecting additional information about the people and cultures that produce them” (Handa 84). I think this is more relevant than ever because our writing should reflect the current times we live in and appeal to those in our time.

I agree completely that Killingsworth’s use and explanation of time made Handa’s argument and overall appeal more relevant and will stay relevant for a long time.

Handa, Carolyn. Multimediated Rhetoric of the Internet. London and New York:

Routledge, 2014. Print.

Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeals to Time.” In Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An
Ordinary-Language Approach. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 38-51. Print.

Editing Analytical Response

While I enjoyed reading this and learned a lot about Wikipedia in the process, I felt that this was very bland and needed some arrangement changes. The biggest modification I made to the article is the order of the information. I changed the order of the numbers because I felt that having the “It says so on Wikipedia” one was more important and should not have been last. I made it second because while I do not want to give up the biggest one right away, I do believe it was necessary to be at the beginning. I also changed the numbers to go from 1 to 10 instead of descending order. When the numbers were descending, I did not believe it sounded correct. With the numbers in ascending order, it made more sense because the most important pieces of information should be first.

From the sources, I used the clarity checklist in Working with Words on page 240, to make sure my article was sound and made sense throughout. Along with that, I used the coherence section of the Style book to make sure that I was not making points in the wrong areas, or adding on to a point that was already made. These two pieces of information helped me reform this article to make sense to every audience. Coherence was explained as, “Think of coherence as seeing what all the sentences in a piece of writing add up to, the way all the pieces in a puzzle add up to the picture on the box” (Williams 38). I wanted to be sure that in its entirety the article made sense.

“Write to others as you would have others write to you” (Williams 132). There were a few spots that I changed words to make the reading earlier to understand for any audience. While the original words were not impossible to understand, I just felt that it was important for a variety of people to understand. For example, under number 3, he states, “In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are “Who wrote this?” and “Why did they write it?” I edited this to say certain questions because if he is only going to state these two, he should not have said there were three in total. I was confused as to why he would say that and then not state the third questions.

There were a few parts where I added in a sentence to remind the reader that these examples are just one of many. While I was reading myself, I felt that was not repeated enough. Under number 4, he gives an example of information being fabricated on the Internet, and thus the information went out in newspapers. But that is just one example of the many false stories on the Internet. Even celebrity news magazines publish fake stories that are not always taken down. I added, as a reminder that is was just one of many cases, and to refer back to number 10, fact checking.

“If any man were to ask me what I would suppose to be a perfect style or language, I would answer, that in which a man speaking to five hundred people, of all common and various capacities, idiots or lunatics excepted, should be understood by them all, and in the same sense which the speaker intended to be understood” (Working with Words 239). Daniel Defoe said this quote. What I took away from this quote is that the overall piece needed to be understood by all and for all to have the same understanding of the article.

I felt the overall article had short and to the point sentences and paragraphs. Each section was no more than 5 sentences. The article is straight and to the point, which I believe made it easier to read. I kept that concept even with adding in my few points.

            I don’t think I am a very strong editor because I do not like the idea of changing an author’s work. With that being said, I understand why editing is important for writers. I know there are times when I have sent my sister something of mine to edit and when it is returned there are small errors that normally, I would not have noticed. It is always good to have an extra pair of eyes to look over your work. I attempted to keep this basically the same, but with adding some information to make the overall article come together better.

Brooks, Brian S., James L. Pinson, and Jean Gaddy. Wilson. Working with Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. Print.

Williams, Joseph M. Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.

Should The Public Have An Opinion

           In McDonald’s I Agree, But…, he explains sociotechnical controversies by saying, “Sociotechnical controversies, that is, those pertaining to society, science, and technology, seem to occupy a particularly important place in the contemporary public sphere and are the subject of numerous analyses in various disciplines, including rhetoric” (McDonald 201). Although people may not have the credibility to truly understand, their ideas can still be beneficial if they can be formed in an appropriate manner. “The value of public deliberation on sociotechnical issues and of citizens participating actively and rhetorically is therefore clear, as the deliberation exposes both experts and citizens to solutions they have may overlooked” (McDonald 201). Everyday citizens would not normally be welcomed into these discussions, but the fact that certain issues affect individual’s everyday lives makes it a public issue.

            McDonald defines public deliberation as, “The aim of public deliberation therefore need not be to consolidate different points of view but rather to learn, understand, and test a party’s beliefs about an issue by juxtaposing them with those of an opposing party. Thus deliberation has the potential to generate new ways of interpreting a controversy, even when the parties do not arrive at an agreement” (McDonald 200). Both Kaufer and McDonald’s articles support the idea that everyday citizens participation in public forms is important to help deliberate solutions to current issues. “They suggest that, for a rhetorical democracy to flourish, controversies should be welcomed, encouraged, stimulated and even organized in order to implicate ordinary citizens in government decision making” (McDonald 201). While both articles say that public deliberation is not always a way to achieve an answer, sometimes it can be left undetermined.

In Kaufer’s A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments, he defines stock issues by saying, “Stock issues are points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy” (Kaufer 57). The article is stating that students need to be taught how to correctly write a policy argument. Stock issues are commonly addressed by people in today’s society, especially with the growth of the internet. Kaufer writes that in classical times rhetoricians understood why this was an important concept to teach. “They knew that stock issues (1) aid invention by helping speakers single out from the list of stock issues those obtaining in the immediate case; (2) aid organization (or arrangement) by insuring speakers against omitting information needed to marshal a comprehensive argument; (3) aid adaptation of speech to audiences by guiding speakers to include the points audiences expected them to address” (Kaufer 57).

             Kaufer begins his way of teaching this subject by asking the question, what causes a policy conflict? This comes with what he calls five levels. “It is designed to help students arrive at their own policy arguments once they have carefully assessed the arguments of others” (Kaufer 58). The levels provide different ways for a student to look at this policy and decide whether they agree with it or not. The first two levels ask if there was a misunderstanding on the frame or reference of certain statements. The third level asks if the article has conflicting evidence. The last two levels ask if the article has conflicting local or global values. After both sides of the argument is read, the students can then use these levels to develop their own argument about the topic. By knowing both sides of the argument and having these levels to decide what way their argument will go, students can then form a hypothesis that they can easily validate or contradict. I believe that McDonald’s Wind Energy section most relates to having conflicting evidence. McDonald explains that, “it can seem paradoxical that HQ, which was promoting natural gas plant, voiced no objection to a green energy source that many consider a better alterative” (McDonald 206).

In McDonald’s article, he states that according to Govier, “controversies have the following characteristics: the individuals who discuss issues are in disagreement with other individuals or groups that discuss the same issues; there is a minimum of two opposing views on these issues; and the parties do not simply express their opposing points of view but argue about the issues in a process of deliberation” (McDonald 200). None of those characteristics say anything about being a scientist or technologically inclined. As long as people who enter a public discussion have opinions and ideas, they should be included in these arguments. “In a constitutive perspective, public deliberation is a practice by which each party is exposed to the knowledge and interpretations of its adversaries” (McDonald 200).

            Public deliberation is a complicated idea because it involves a variety of people with different ideas. Both authors support the idea that if the issue involves the public, they should have a say in those issues. While controversies can be taken out of hand, if the two parties arguing can be professional about it, I believe it can be a good way to generate new ideas for all individuals.

Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication. 35.1 (Feb. 1984): 57-70. Web. 

McDonald, James. "I Agree, But...Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through Public Deliberation."Rhetoric and Public Deliberation. 199-217. Web. 

Analytical Response Science Blog

Here is a link to my Science Blog. 

     For my essay, “Are Copyright Laws Out of Date?” I chose to focus on Charles Bailey Jr’s, “Net Neutrality = Digital Dystopia”, discussing how copyright laws are being misused in todays internet based society. I chose one article for Wired.com called “Corporations Abusing Copyright Laws Are Ruining the Web for Everyone” and an article from the New York Times International website called, “The Inexact Science Behind D.M.C.A Takedown Notices.” Both of these articles provided an immense amount of information backing up my theory.

    Once I found my information, I reread the Blogging book to find out ways to frame my blog in a new light. Blog is defined as, “a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Wed and consisting of discrete entries, typically displayed in reverse chronological order” (Rettberg 32). Although having the definition of a blog was helpful, I chose to focus more on the style of the blog. In our Style book, we discussed Cohesion and Coherence. This is one thing I found hard for me to do throughout my essay. While I had the information, it was not being placed in a way that framed the ideas in my own perspective. Our style book states that cohesion and coherence are two different aspects of writing, and you need both to succeed. “Think of cohesion as pairs of sentences fitting together the way individual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle do. Think of coherence as seeing what all the sentences in a piece of writing add up to the way all the pieces in a puzzle add up to the picture on the box” (Williams 38).

    That was finally what helped me frame my story. Rather than spitting out the information I had read, I needed to reframe the information to be a new article, which I did not quite get in the beginning. Another chapter in Style that helped me is the chapter on Shape. In all my essays, the feedback was that I was not stating my point from the start, but rather giving those important pieces of information at the end. “When we read its point first, we can anticipate the relevance of the next nineteen words even before we read them” (Williams 101).

   The last source I used for this essay is Grant-Davie’s article on rhetorical constraints. In that article, he says, “Bitzer argues that understanding the situation is important because the situation invites and largely determines the form of the rhetorical work that responds to it” (Grant-Davie 265). I had to keep rereading this section to keep this point in mind. I continuously forgot who and why I was writing this article and what was the importance of it. My rhetorical situation kept leaving my mind. I believe after all the work I did, the article came out wonderfully framed and made a good point.

Works Cited:

Grant‐Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents."Rhetoric Review 15.2 (1997): 264-79. Web.

Rettberg, Jill Walker. Blogging. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. Print.

Williams, Joseph M. Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.

Short Assign 2

In Read Naturally, Scientific Research, and Reading First, Davidson begins by explaining the No Child Left Behind Act, which is an education bill that was passed in 2002. This act is attempting to improve reading skills of students in grades K through 3. This article discusses how reading and fluency can effect a child, and how, scientifically, we can change that outcome. This blog seems to be a citizen’s explanatory genre because it is explaining a concept that is important but has not been reported on very much. Other than the fact that this concept of improving reading skills in children is being explained, Davidson gives research to back up her beliefs and ideas. “Blogs provide a means of publishing and distributing that is cheap and simple enough for everyone with access to the internet to use directly, whether from home, school, the library or even a mobile phone” (Rettberg 91). With this type of publication, anyone can access this article to further his or her knowledge of the subject. I believe that although this article was published on “White Paper,” it is scientifically sound and can be used to increase reading comprehension in students.

In this article, Davidson states that, “The National Reading Panel report identifies the essential elements of reading instruction: alphabetics, fluency and comprehension” (Davidson 3). By starting out with these facts, Davidson is giving the reader the overall information of the subject. She also states, “The National Reading Panel defines reading fluency as “the immediate result of word recognition proficiency” (Davidson 4). The article then goes on to say, “While fluency includes automatic word recognition, the ability to read words rapidly is not enough. Readers also need to be able to read with expression, chunking words into phrases and using pauses appropriately” (Davidson 4).

These small facts and examples give the author credibility. I don’t believe that it matters whether this author is a journalist or not because the facts are given and the ethos is presented. “You don’t need a particular degree or license to call yourself a journalist as you would to call yourself a doctor or a psychologist” (Rettberg 94). This article is explanatory because other than stating the facts, it gives ways to achieve these goals. Davidson gives the step-by-step process of the READ NATURALLY procedure. “In the last step, the student retells the story either orally or by writing sentences. Students must either include a certain number of ideas or write for a certain length of time” (Davidson 7).

           This article, to me, would be considered citizen’s genre because a person who is concerned with this subject published it. This article did not come from a journal or newspaper, but from this “White Paper” site. Davidson is giving examples of how this can be achieved and what the outcome would be. The way the article is ended justifies all that I said in this assignment, “READ NATURALLY can provide the tools to move the reader stalled at a slow word-by-word reading stage into comfortable fluent reading where attention can be focused on meaning. After all, the goal of reading is to gain meaning from what is read. Thus, READ NATURALLY can be a critical bridge to meaning and ultimately, to reading success” (Davidson 11).