Considering Types

Global X "Rule #1 during arguments" 01/22/14 via flickr.
Attribution 2,0 Generic

In this post I will be considering the different types of arguments that I might use for my controversy. In particular I will be talking about the position argument, the casual argument, and the evaluative argument because I think that these will be the most effective for my perspective. I will also talk about how the refutation argument and the proposal argument wouldn't work for me.



POSITION ARGUMENT

I think that this argument would probably be the strongest for me. It basically describes what I want to do, which is give a different perspective and defend it. I think this this would be the most straightforward and effective type of argument for me to make in this context and with this audience.


CAUSAL ARGUMENT

This one could also work, but I don't think it would work as well. I could focus on the fact that people ignore emotional aspects over the logical side of the story and how this leads to negative effects. However there is no real definitive cause of this issue and so it wouldn't be very strong.

EVALUATIVE ARGUMENT

This is sort of an interesting way I could do this project, because I could claim that Patterson and the gorilla foundation were aiming for this type of emotional impact the whole time. I could then conclude using evidence that they were very effective in achieving their goal because of all the positive outcomes of this story emotion-wise.

PROPOSAL ARGUMENT

Since there is no real solution to the controversy I am addressing (at least not the way I am addressing it) this would not be a strong choice for me, This type of argument seems to be for those who have a plan on how to do something that they are trying to convey to the reader, whereas I am just trying to mostly convince them to self-reflect a bit.

REFUTATION ARGUMENT

Although I will be refuting the fact that scientific value is the most important in Koko's case, I will not be actively trying to prove that their point of view is wrong. This would not be a good choice for me because I am just trying to introduce a new perspective, not eliminate any perspectives.


Reflection:

For this reflection I looked at Grace's rhetorical action plan and her considering types post. I did the same with Olivia's rhetorical action plan and considering types post. After reading their posts I think that I am going to stay on this plan for my project, because I think all of our arguments will work great for us individually. I think that Olivia's idea about a cooking show is GENIUS. It makes me want to try to add something more creative to my argument. Maybe since my genre is a newspaper I could add a gorilla crossword puzzle or something sort of fun like that just for the whole effect of the final project.

Rhetorical Action Plan

I am going to be developing a rhetorical plan for my public speech act and answering the questions the textbook poses about audience, genre, and the reactions or response I hope to achieve. I will also address the possible negative reactions and how I would respond to them.

southtyrolean "orator" 05/11/06 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

• AUDIENCE

I am going to be trying to persuade late 40 to 50 year old's that are familiar with Koko's story of my argument. This audience will have at least general knowledge on the subject that they most likely gained from when they were a child and the book Koko's kitten was out. Since this was where they got the majority of their information, they probably aren't too familiar with the super scientific aspect of the topic, which I can use to my advantage. The audience could have any range of opinions on this topic, and I will mainly be catering to people that were either positively emotionally impacted by Koko but also those who remember Koko but are neutral on the controversy. Even the skeptics could be targeted in my argument. 

Being older, these people may have more of a traditional view on things. For example they may be wary of all the scientific technology that is coming about these days. This is kind of the norm or at least the stereotype that is around today (the battle of the older generation vs. technology). I think that these people will value strong statistics or evidence, and I might have to use numerous examples so that they can clearly see the trends I am talking about. I also think that including emotional visuals would be more effective given the nature of their relationship to the topic. 

Mostly what I want my audience to do is see a new perspective that might alter their way of looking at this topic. I will be challenging the beliefs of the skeptics, but for a large part of my audience I will mostly just be showing them a new perspective. I think that there is a good chance that my argument could produce the desired effect. As long as I am able to cater to my specific audience the way I have planned, I think they will have an emotional and self-reflecting response to my public speech act.

• GENRE

S Jon "Newspaper colour" 10/24/11 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic

My public speech act could take place in a newspaper, perhaps one like the Daily Mail or Daily News. I chose this genre because due to my audience, I think they would be most likely to read a newspaper about the topic at hand. Also I didn't want to get a newspaper that was too sciency because then my perspective would not be likely to have much effect. Also I think that the self-reflection I am hoping to make the reader undergo would be pretty effective in the newspaper setting. I could see it being used as people get ready for their day, reading the newspaper and reading this article.

I am going to use a lot of pathos in my argument, as the perspective I plan on showing relies mostly on this rhetorical strategy. I am going to give personal stories and show emotional benefits of Koko and her story in America. However in the way I present my information I am going to do it in a logical way that makes sense so I don't lose my reader's interest with too much emotional appeal. Some character could also possibly come into play when giving some of my own background on the topic. 

In this genre I am probably not going to be able to use more than one or two interspersed visuals. But one at the beginning and one somewhere in the middle of the article tends to be the norm for this genre (if not just one at the beginning) and so I think I could get some pathos going in my pictures too. I am going to be using a conversational tone. Due to the nature of my approach to the topic, I don't think formality would work well at all. I am going to be trying to get the reader to feel like they are emotionally attached to the argument I am presenting, and I think the best way to do that is with an informal tone. 

Here are a few examples of discussions about Koko the gorilla seen in this genre:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273726/Meeting-mummy-time-Koko-gorilla-adopts-two-baby-kittens-cuddles-fondly-heart-warming-footage.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/robin-williams-mourned-koko-gorilla-article-1.1901932

Another possible genre could be a slightly science based online article. This would appeal to my audience in that it would be for people who are already interested in the topic, and I would make sure the style of article would be suited for the particular age range of my audience. I could see this being used in an online setting and I can imagine people starting commentary in the comment thread about this topic. 

I think in this genre I would have to approach it from a 50/50 logical and emotional standpoint. Like I said earlier, I can't write my perspective without using pathos, However logic would be more important in this setting than the newspaper one because of the slightly science based nature of it. 

I think that I would be able to use lots of emotional photographs and visuals throughout the article. I would also use a slightly conversational tone, but a bit more formal than the newspaper setting since this is a more formal genre for writing in. 

Links to articles like this can be found below:

http://www.koko.org/michaels-story

(I think that this one could be REALLY effective since there is an obvious difference in perspectives from the other information on here).

http://www.koko.org/sites/default/files/root/pdfs/journal_2007_zoo_gestures.pdf

I actually also like this one a lot too.

• POSITIVE REACTIONS

1. Sentimental feelings that lead to a new perspective on Koko the gorilla's story
2. Understanding of a different perspective that leads to a shift in point of view on the topic
3. Agreement with the argument and relatability that leads to a new understanding of this story and a different viewpoint on this topic. 

• NEGATIVE REBUTTALS

1. This is not important to the scientific aspect of the topic- well they're right, but I would have to say that this is such a different article from the normal science based journals that are usually presented that this is almost a psychological piece, and the mental positivity of people from this story is a scientific aspect as well.
2. There is too much opinion- A certain amount of interpretation does go into this, but also I will be showing proof that what I claim is the truth and using evidence that will hopefully balance out the opinion. 
3. This doesn't matter- I will be presenting several reasons why this is an important part of the story of Koko the gorilla, and why the numbers aren't all that is important in this controversy. The effect on the people is just as big as the effect on the scientific study of animal communication.

Analyzing Purpose

I want to add a new perspective to this controversy, and in this post I will start talking and brainstorming about exactly what this new point of view could be. I will be writing in paragraph form for some of the post and then I will also include a chart to go through the process described in the textbook.

Blumenthal, Roy "08 -- Empathy and Emotional Intelligence: What You Need..."
03/23/09 via flickr. Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic

1.

In purpose, my public argument will be similar to that of the other perspectives on this topic in that my main purpose will be to make the readers think and do a little self-reflection. I hope to make the readers see the emotional importance of Koko the gorilla's story, and feel touched by the emotional aspect of this controversy. I am going to try to convey my message to the reader in a way that makes them understand the importance of Koko outside of scientific research. Also with my targeted audience, I will create some self reflection that will make the reader think about their own experiences with this story. 

2. 

Plausible Actions/Reactions	Not Plausible
Self reflection	Anger
Sentimental feelings	Moved to action
Change in perspective	Complete change in ideology
Think it’s foolish	Any drastic action

3.

Self reflection- react calmer in future to news about Koko, be less inclined to dismiss something as "stupid" or foolish, realize the implications outside of scientific values. \

Sentimental feelings- stronger reaction to future news about Koko, grow more attached to Koko's story and be more willing to stick up for their side in the future.

Change in perspective- realize the implications outside of scientific research and not be so inclined to judge in the future when they see this perspective and the positive reaction from this perspective. 

Think its foolish- become a firm believer in the logical perspective of this issue, be unwilling to listen to the other side and be more resistant to emotional arguments in the future. 

4.

Since my goal is to move my reader to self-reflection and a positive emotional reaction  to my perspective, I think that the best bet would be for me to either target younger scientific minds or early 50's people that were growing up when Koko was becoming popular. The younger audience is more likely (theoretically) to be open to new perspectives and have points of views that can be swayed. Conversely the older audience would have a closer emotional bond to Koko already and not need as much background information or convincing. Since there is likely already some sentimentality there on this topic, it would be easier to convince them of my perspective. However a lot of them may not need convincing if they are emotionally attached already to the topic. 

Analyzing Context

In this post I will be looking at the big picture of the controversy on Koko the gorilla and answering the questions the textbook poses about the context.

Cornells, Marc "audience" 02/09/13 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought?

One of the most prominent perspectives is that Koko the gorilla has the language development of a young child and is unique in her development of signing and comprehension of human language, and for this reason is an incredible show of genius amongst animals. Another is that Koko is not as impressive as Patterson claims, and that most of her skill comes from Patterson's selective interpretation of Koko's signing.


2. What are the major points of contention between these perspectives?

Some of the major points of contention are the degree to which Patterson manipulates Koko's words and how much of Koko's signing is just pure luck. Another is how much of Koko's emotional responses are just projected on to her from the humans around her.

3. What are the possible points of agreement or common ground?

Generally it is accepted that Koko has a remarkable skill set for a gorilla. Also they can agree that Koko has been invaluable to the feild of animal communication.


4.What are the ideological differences between the perspectives?

People that believe Koko has a complete grasp of human language generally would ideologically value the more emotional side, which is that animals can be comperable to humans in communication skills. Those that disagree value logic and ideologically see that humans are superior and that Patterson shouldn't put so much of her own interpretation into Koko's words.


5. What specific actions do the perspectives' articles ask their readers to take? 

As seen in "What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?" by Jane C. Hu, the skeptics are mostly focused on inducing self-reflection. They want to make the reader think about and doubt what they have been previously told and find a different opinion. On the other side of the argument, the believers want their reader to recognize Koko as a demonstration of how gorillas are just like people, and in doing this hope they will donate to the cause, the Gorilla Foundation.


6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own argument? Why did you choose these?

I think that both sides of the issue would be important in my argument. I want to take the less published side about how Koko and her stories positively impact the emotions of the public. I would want to use the skeptics to sort of call them out for being too focused on logic and nitpicky over specifics. I would also want to use the believers as an example of the good that can come from Koko and the positive emotional output.


7. What perspectives do you think will be the biggest threat to your argument?

I think that the skeptic side will be a strong opposition to my argument. Especially because in the last project I actually focused on the skeptic argument and saw how effective it could be. But I think with my target audience emotional appeal should be very effective, more so than the logical appeal of the skeptics would be.


REFLECTION

I read and responded to Gabee and Jon's posts about context. Before reading the posts, I was a little nervous about taking the emotional side, especially since I am so logic based and this is a scientific topic. But after reading, I realized that really we can take whatever stance we want, and I think mine might be more interesting since it is so different than the ones that are already presented in the field.

Jon seemed like he had a good grasp on his controversy, and after going back and looking over my own post again, it made me feel like comparably I am pretty established in the ideas that I have. When reading Gabee's post I noticed that she just focused on the extremes of her debate, and that made me think about another perspective in my controversy, which is people that might be torn between the two sides.

Audience and Genre

In this blog post I will be analyzing the audience I need to be addressing in this project and the setting in which I will be addressing them. I plan on writing this paper in a way that I haven't been able to find so far, which is from more of a personal standpoint. That is, I will use personal stories and experience to talk about this topic.

The people that care about this topic are literally everyone. Just kidding just kidding. The people that care about the answers to the questions I have presented and I will be catering to are probably the people that were growing up when Koko's Kitten was published, aka people who are now in their mid-forties or early fifties. This topic would matter to them because it is a part of their childhood. Since they became emotionally invested in this topic from an early age, they are more likely to be sentimental and more responsive to the way I plan on addressing this topic. I might be able to reach this audience in something like a newspaper, because older people read newspapers (just kidding I read them too) or an documentary about Koko and the emotional response she has received.  Some example links are:

Online Newspapers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/why-tell-koko-about-robin-williamss-death.html?_r=0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273726/Meeting-mummy-time-Koko-gorilla-adopts-two-baby-kittens-cuddles-fondly-heart-warming-footage.html

*NOTE: Although these are online newspapers, if I chose this as my project I would most likely make a more real newspaper, made out of actual paper. Because that is way cooler.


Online Videos/Documentaries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR6MeFFzqQ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teB-Icrog6E

*NOTE: Although these are on youtube I would be more likely to make a video that would hypothetically be on the tv since late forties people are more likely to watch something like the discovery channel than the internet.

Howie. Jason "Social Media apps" 03/23/13 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic

Another audience that would be likely to care about the answers to my questions are younger and more scientific minds, perhaps in their late twenties. Scientific minds this young would be interested in the material I was presenting, but much more responsive than older people that probably would be less open to a viewpoint like this at this point. I would be most likely to be able to reach this audience through an online article on a popular science website like IFL Science, or in a forum like social media (Facebook page) since younger people are more likely to utilize the internet and social media. Some examples are:

Online Article:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/koko-gorilla-making-friends-adorable-kittens

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/08/koko_kanzi_and_ape_language_research_criticism_of_working_conditions_and.html


Social Media:

https://www.facebook.com/Koko-The-Gorilla-Foundation-289961865248/

https://twitter.com/kokotweets

Extended Annotated Bibliography

To answer the focusing questions made, I found four sources that provide answers. I then created an annotated bibliography on the sources I found, which can be found here.

Burling Timmothy "Female Gorilla" 05/05/13 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Narrowing My Focus

In this post I will pick a few of the best questions from my previous post to narrow my focus. I will be further researching these questions to get a better background on this controversy. 

Gummi bears and pearls "I Mustache You A Question"
10/23/15 via pinterest. 

• How does the Koko project affect the nature of animal communication as a whole?

I think that this question is important to answer because it could have a big impact on the validity of the case. It could also have big implications for the argument I want to make in my project. 

• What has the emotional response to Koko the gorilla been to the public?

With the viewpoint that I have in mind, I think it will be really helpful for my argument to know what the emotional response has been to Koko. In fact my argument kind of hinges on this question. 

• How have other arguments of this topic been presented publicly,and what points of view have have been shown?

I think this is important when starting to consider how I will want to make my own project. I have to make sure that the point of view I am presenting is new, and in a genre that someone interested in this controversy would actually care about. 

Questions About Controversy

Onward and upward to Project 3. Here's to hoping that I have a sudden epiphany while writing this post and creativity floods to me. I have chosen to stick with my topic for Project 2 (its really interesting to me) of Koko and her communication skills or lack thereof. In this post I will draft focusing questions (after our angsty class discussion today, not 25 but instead 15) that will help establish what I need to know more about the controversy.

Goehring, David "It Looks Insoluble" 11/26/11 via flickr.
 Attribution 2.0 Generic

• Write 3 questions in which you identify things you still need to learn about about WHO is involved in the controversy.

Who else is involved besides Patterson and Koko? Are there other scientists directly involved?

Who has interacted with Koko aside from Patterson?

Who is a credible insight into this topic?

• Write 3 questions in which you identify things you still need to learn about about WHAT is up for debate in this controversy.

What viewpoints have been covered already in the conversation?

What is the whole history behind Koko and Patterson?

What are the direct statistics when it comes to this debate (revenue for gorilla foundation, Koko's signing capacity etc.)

What has been the world's reaction to Koko thus far?

• Write 3 questions in which you identify things you still need to learn about WHEN this controversy has unfolded (and the larger contextual details of that time period that may be relevant).

When did Koko and Patterson first meet?

When did Koko start learning signs?

When was the last time that Koko learned a sign? 

When has Koko made a big splash in the news?

• Write 3 questions in which you identify things you still need to learn about WHERE this controversy has unfolded - and I mean both physical spaces and cultural spaces.

Where has Koko's story been told? Worldwide? America?

Where is Koko being currently housed?

Where is Koko currently being studied (where are scientists looking at her case in the world?)

Where is Koko originally from?

• Write 3 questions in which you identify things you still need to learn about HOW this controversy has unfolded in the media (including general popular media, scholarly media and social media).

How has the public reacted over the years to Koko's skill?

How is the controversy changing over time?

How does Patterson present Koko's signing (what methods does she use)?

How does Koko's case affect the nature of animal communication as a whole?

How have other arguments of this topic been presented publicly. 

I guess I ended up doing 4 for most of them. But for the most part I am feeling confident about this start to this project. I feel like I have  basis of what I need to know to make a good analysis of this topic. 

Reflection on Project 2

Now that Project 2 is complete, it is time to reflect on my revision process.. To do so, I will be answering the questions posed in the text.

Hammoud, Ahmad "A Beautiful Look" 03/18/11 via flickr. 

Attribution 2.0 Generic

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

What I specifically focused on was addressing my audience by literally walking them through the steps I was taking. In my first draft, my essay was pretty much a rhetorical analysis. But when I shook off my high school habits of third person point of view only, I feel like I was able to connect with the reader a lot better. Like I almost made them real in my head to where I'm imagining talking to a student.


2. Globally how did you reconsider the thesis or organization?

I reconsidered my thesis pretty much the same way I reconsidered my whole essay: by connecting to my audience personally. I worked to make sure that I really linked myself to them so that I was sort of drawing them into the paper instead of just lecturing them. And adding this part into my thesis was important for my revision.


3. What led you to these changes?

I think what made me change my essay in this way was that I took into consideration my audience's needs and what I was really supposed to be doing with this essay. I knew who my audience was in the first place, but when we talked in class about being explicit I decided that it was better to be too direct then not direct enough and I went for it.


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

Well I think it both helps and hinders my credibility in a way. By being more buddy-buddy with the reader, they see me as above them (I mean I'm telling them what to do) but not by any means a super authoritative figure. But I think when considering that this is a student, a freshman no less, this would up my credibility in that they are more willing to trust me. I tried to make it so I wasn't so much bossing them around as guiding them through the process, and I think a scared freshman (like myself) would be more responsive to what I had to say as a result of this change.


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

By taking into consideration the actual prompt, I directly change how I address the audience. I wanted to make it so it was clear what I was trying to do in my essay, and also by being more conversational I think I adhere to the reader's needs more. After all, what college student wants to be talked at about a tricky topic like this? I tried to make it sound more like I was talking WITH them about this topic.


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

I changed my style with the rhetorical question in the second sentence. I have NEVER used rhetorical questions in an essay. Because I literally would have gotten curb stomped. But I changed up my style for this essay, and in doing so also started being less wordy. I was more concise about it because I was being more conversational, for example in my first sentence. I tried to make it shorter so my audience wouldn't be lost in the run-ons.


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

I think the change of style will help to make the reader understand that my purpose is not to lecture them on rhetorical usage, my goal is to engage them in the analysis. And I think that the rhetorical question I employed early on helps to get them thinking and draw them into my paper.


8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the genre while you were writing?

Oh boy. I'm not sure if this is exactly what the question is asking, but the way I'm taking the question heck yes I did. Starting off I first had to reanalyze me preconceived notions on the essay genre in that 1st person pronouns were alright. To me this had ALWAYS been a part of essays. But I really had to get used to the fact that that is not really the case. But at the same time, I still had to follow the skeleton of an essay of course, and make sure I wasn't being too informal about it. I found myself reconsidering the conventions of the essay genre pretty much all through the process of drafting and revision.


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

I'm actually finding in these reflection posts that I'm a very self reflecty person. It also helps me to realize that really as a writer I am checking myself all through the process. Its almost like I have a little teacher in my head like standing over writing me's shoulder and correcting them along the way. I think that this is a pretty cool thing to know about myself, because I'm not just banging on the keyboard praying for coherent thought to come out. The reflection process just really helps me to realize that I adapt as I go. Like for example the first person pronouns, I was expecting to have a way harder time than I did including them. But once it was clear how useful they would be in this essay I made sure I included them. Its just cool to see that I am a very self-reflecting writer to me.


Reflection of my peers reflections:

For this reflection I looked at Jon and Lia's posts. In Lia's reflection I was able to see a lot of similarities to my Project 2 experience. We had different ideas on the reasons for what we did or didn't revise, but we both heavily revised our introductions and conclusions based on the class discussion and examples.

Jon on the other hand had a different problem than me. Where I was over-analyzing to the point where my essay was too much analysis, he found himself lacking analysis. This sort of made me value my own analysis because one thing I have no shortage of is thoughts to spew (*see my very first blog post for this class, ah memories). Although it can be hard to narrow down sometimes, at least I have it all out there to pick and choose from.

However one thing we all had in common was a lot of audience based revision. I think that as a class we had a hard time breaking free of the standard rhetorical analysis and explicitly saying our purpose. But during the revision stage and after the class discussions it seems like we were able to free ourselves a bit, use those scary (but way helpful) first person pronouns, and put together an effective Project 2. Or at least we feel like we did this.

Project 2

'Tis complete. Project 2 is at last complete. And here it is: Cuckoo for Koko Buffs: Recognizing Rhetoric in the Biology Field. Enjoy!

And also enjoy these puppies frolicking about their merry way, bounding into Project 3:

Jellison, Mercedes "Frolicking French Bulldog Puppies" 02/15 via pinterest. 

Punctuation, Part 2

Tres Mas! In this post I will once again be looking at the Punctuation section of the textbook for advice. This time, I will be analyzing the text's advice on colons, quotation marks, and other punctuation marks. I will be talking about these topics in reference to my own draft as well. And eve though I don't talk about apostrophes in this post, the picture below made me giggle so I had to include it.

Hollacaine "Punctuation" 10/21/14 via reddit.

The colon

I feel like this is slightly similar to the semicolon in that I am wary of using it incorrectly. In high school my English teachers always said that if you have more than one semicolon or colon in an essay then you were using it wrong. I never really thought this was true, but I conformed for the sake of my grade. However now I need to start using more because I know I need them. This chapter clarified when exactly to use colons a bit. I knew about the listing aspect, but what was new for me was the quotation usage of colons. I didn't really know that this was an option to use a colon right before a quote, and I feel like it could be really useful.

In my own draft, I was able to (hopefully effectively) utilize this punctuation:

"Hu strengthens her claims with Sapolsky’s own words: 'People just don’t want to hear anything negative… You want to believe this fairy tale; it’s magical' (Hu 4)."

Previously, I had been having problems with the wordiness of the introduction to the quote. But I thing that the colon sort of helps the quote be more impactful in the paper.


Quotation marks

I learned more than I was expecting to in reading this chapter. For one, I got some concrete rules to make sure that I was quoting correctly, and that made me feel better. But the major insight here was in long quotations. I hadn't known that by indenting the long text you imply that it is word for word, and therefore you don't need quotations. This was especially applicable to when I use and except of the transcript of Koko's chat from my source (look at me, I'm using a colon to introduce this quote, look at me all learning and stuff):

Question: Do you like to chat with other people?

Koko: fine nipple

Patterson: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn’t sign people per se, she was trying   to do a ‘sounds like… (Hu 2).

I had originally included quotations, but after reading this chapter I realize that the indentation makes this unnecessary, so I fixed it. I'm pretty sure I have been doing this wrong my whole life so this is kind of really important for me actually.


Other punctuation marks

I found this chapter interesting because there are a lot of punctuations in here that I'm a little hesitant to use. For instance, the dash. I feel like in a lot of cases it just makes my sentences more wordy. But I actually didn't know that the proper way to make a dash is to use two hyphens. I had just been using one hyphen and thinking it was the same. And although I am not analyzing poetry here obviously, I didn't know that if you take out a whole line you do a line of ellipses. That's interesting. But for the most part, I have a good understanding of ellipses. For example:

"Hu strengthens her claims with Sapolsky’s own words: 'People just don’t want to hear anything negative… You want to believe this fairy tale; it’s magical' (Hu 4)."

In this quote I used ellipses to show that there was material I had cut out. I think ellipses are actually super useful in that they help get the unneeded material out of there. This helps decrease wordiness and keep your reader engaged so they aren't bored with words unnecessary to your argument.

Paragraph Analysis 2

In this post I will be evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of my essay's paragraphs. In doing so I will be analyzing several important aspects of the paragraph as stated in the book. The link to my Paragraph Analysis can be found here.

Oskay, Windell "Paragraphetzel" 03/06/07 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

After analyzing some of my paragraphs are definitely way stronger than others. My last two paragraphs in particular aren't interesting enough. I think that while I stay on topic,develop my point, use transitions and organization, what is lacking is the quality of the main point I am making. I need to make it worthwhile to read.

The other three paragraphs are better on this point, and do all of the right things, but the first body paragraph may have a hard time focusing on one main point. I definitely plan on going back to these paragraphs and making them stronger with their main points. I am also going to read back through my first body paragraph to make sure that it isn't too confusing.

Revised Conclusion

Okay now this one I'm more comfortable with, because my first conclusion sucked. Similar to the last post, in this one I will be throwing out my conclusion paragraph and re-imagining it. I have chosen to try to answer the so what question to mix up my introduction and do more than a summary.

Time Out Says "So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye!"
02/23/12 via timeout.come

OLD AND CRAPPY CONCLUSION

Hu’s mastery over her audience is ultimately what determines her success in rhetorical usage. This author has complete knowledge of what proof her audience needs to believe in her claim, and takes all the right steps to lead them to her conclusion. She addresses Patterson’s manipulation of Koko’s words for her own gain; to win over the audience and make the audience doubt themselves. But, ironically Hu herself who ends up in a way manipulating her audience. While this may seem a little backhanded, it is nearly unrecognizable to her audience. Such is Hu’s mastery of rhetoric, that she is able to identify someone else’s use of manipulation, use it for her case, and then use the same rhetoric to twist the audience to her conclusion. When analyzing a rhetorical piece like this, we must be sure to identify at these final implications to get a handle on an author’s rhetorical skill. Through a full analysis such as this we can effectively identify rhetoric and from this synthesize the author’s grasp on rhetoric as a whole.


NEW AND HOPEFULLY BETTER CONCLUSION

Being able to identify and analyze rhetoric can be an extremely useful skill. In the real world after college, and even starting now in college, people will sometimes be such smooth manipulators that you don't even realize what you're giving in to. But by practicing now, you will be able to separate truth from fiction, and make more comprehensive observations because of this. But later on you could benefit from having knowledge of rhetoric that does and doesn't work for your audience. Often the most valuable skills we learn come from imitating others. By being able to analyze the effectiveness of certain rhetorical techniques, we have a foundation for your own rhetoric. While it is important to realize what does and doesn't work for you as a writer as you develop your own style, at first it can be useful to watch the experts. While Hu's specific article may not be relevant in the long term for its content, her use of rhetoric is something we can admire as beginners. Hu's article is a great example of how knowledge of your audience can be vital in convincing them of your point. When analyzing this piece, it is obvious how effective rhetoric and awareness of rhetoric can be in the science field.


This one is much better to me mostly because of the lack of summary. I give the reader a reason to care and apply what they have learned reading this essay, and I think this makes it more of an open conversation piece, I sort of imagine my hypothetical student reading this essay and then thinking back to it in their future endeavors as a scientist and information synthesizer. I also make it MUCH more personal, and sort of make it seem like I am with them in this journey, but at the same time make it clear that I am the mentor in this situation. Even if it still needs work, these changes really just made my conclusion infinitely less boring to me honestly.

Revised Introduction

I have been instructed to toss my previous introductions into the wind, and move on to a new and re-imagined introduction. Despite my extreme discomfort with this (I'm sure this is the point, to get us out of our comfort zones), in this post I will be composing my new and (in theory) better introduction paragraph. So goodbye my old introduction, you have been eliminated.

Laila "You are the weakest link, Goodbye"
 08/20/15 via Buzzfeed. 

OLD INTRO

Koko the gorilla has long been hailed as one of the most fascinating studies of animal communication. But is Koko’s skill really all it is made out to be? At one year old, the primate was paired with Penny Patterson, who taught Koko sign language which Patterson claims Koko is able to understand and coherently repeat (Hu 1). However Jane C. Hu points out some important issues with this claim in her 2014 article “What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?” At the time of her article’s publishing, the American public was touched by Patterson’s report of Koko’s display of grief when she was informed that her former playmate, actor Robin Williams had passed away. But as an American herself as well as a popular science journalist, Hu uprooted several more likely causes for Koko’s display of emotion. In fact, her overall familiarity with her audience was vital to her construction of a rhetorical argument her audience would relate to. Hu claims that “[a]nimals perceive the emotions of the humans around them, and the anecdotes in the release could easily be evidence that Koko was responding to the sadness she sensed in her human caregivers” (Hu 1). This display of a logical alternative is a way of drawing her audience closer to her point of view. Hu’s disdain for the abstract twisting of Koko’s signs is a show of her American culture, where in today’s modern life there is constant manipulation and corruption in the media, politics, and other aspects of life. In times like these, Americans value full disclosure, but know they likely won’t get it. Hu plays on this fear in her audience, and makes herself out to be the good guy sharing the same values as the audience. In her article "What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?", Jane C. Hu emphatically claims Koko the gorilla's communication to be over-exaggerated and shaky at best, and strives to make her audience reanalyze what they have previously been told about Koko's "genius". By providing layers of evidence and playing on the modern American fear of manipulation, Hu effectively convinces her reader that her claims are the logical truth and that their preconceptions were the result of word twisting and human weakness for implausible whimsy.
NEW AND IN THEORY IMPROVED INTRO:

"When you think about Koko the gorilla, what are the first feeling that come to mind? Perhaps admiration for her communication skills? Lovable, and heartwarming? How about bitterness, trickery, and manipulation? These strong negative emotions are not the typical viewpoint of Koko. But in the article "What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?", the author Jane C. Hu pulls out all the stops to make sure her audience is embroiled in the latter feelings. When this article was written, Koko's former playmate actor Robin Williams had just passed away. Reports about the famous gorilla's show of grief when she was told this news were being gobbled up by the public, and the heartwarming anecdote charmed the American heart. As a American science journalist with an insight to US culture however, Hu was not convinced. She claimed this widespread misconception of Koko's skills to be merely a result of American whimsy. However it is interesting to see how much rhetoric goes into Hu's argument. As biology majors, it is important to be able to locate and identify rhetorical usages in pieces like this. In doing so, we are able to build up an awareness of rhetorical manipulation in our field, as well as be able to know effective techniques to get our points across in future scientific arguments. In her article, Hu effectively utilizes the knowledge of her American and scientific audience to manipulate them by building onto multiple rhetorical techniques. By providing layers of evidence and playing on the modern American fear of manipulation, Hu effectively strives to convince her reader of the fallacy of Patterson's arguments and Koko's famed communication skills.

I honesty don't feel that this introduction is stronger. I think aspects of it are, like how I explicitly addressed the audience. I think this really helped with the issues I was having with inviting the reader in and making them care about the paper. I tried to experiment and get out of my comfort zone by starting off the paper with some rhetorical questions. This is something I would have likely been flogged for in high school, so it was difficult for me. But I can see how it could be an effective way of inviting the reader into the paper and provoking thought. I also tried to add some imagery in the questions with the connotative words and shock factor. I really really tried to re=imagine my thesis, but the other one just kept calling to me. I rearranged it and took out a few parts, but I feel like my first one was still better. 

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

Now that I am done with my first draft and the first bit of peer review (I'm not sure if there is more) I am going to answer questions from the book on what I have learned overall about my own project from peer reviewing. The two peers whose papers I commented on were Carrie Belle and Grace. 

Meme Generator "X ALL THE THINGS" via memegenerator.net

Identifiable and specific thesis?

I actually am rather proud of my thesis. Of course if someone tore it apart I wouldn't be overly attached to it, but in peer review I was told that my thesis was a good introduction and really strong. I think the way I got around just doing the formulaic "ethos pathos logic" worked out alright for me. 

Organization

Really I just decided to lump the ideas that seemed to lead into each other together, while avoiding the "ethos pathos logos" structure. In the first paragraph I talked about the author's familiarity with her audience and blended in American culture and beliefs. I talk about how this gives her credibility, as well as a bit of emotion.  I don't know if this is too unfocused of me, so I'll double check to make sure that it stays on track. 

The second paragraph I wrote mostly about logical appeal, specifically the transcript of Koko's chat since I thought this was incredibly important for the reader. Then I transition into how this logic directly leads to an emotional response that makes her gain credibility. But mostly this paragraph is focused on logos, and I think I supported and focused it well. 

In the third paragraph I tried to mostly analyze the analytical claim of the paper, and how the author's overall goal can contribute to their rhetoric. However in peer review I was told that this paragraph wasn't as strong as the other ones. Maybe adding some more specifics and more analysis would help to make the paragraph stronger, but I think it stays focused pretty well. 

Did I analyze and identify the important elements of rhetorical situation?

I analyzed and identified audience, author, a bit of context, message, and all of the appeals in my essay. So I actually touched on all of them at least briefly (I hope this isn't a bad thing) but I focused more on  the main ones like audience, author, and logic that I think were most instrumental to the article's rhetoric. 

Did I explain how and why these strategies were used? Did I discuss the effects of the strategies? 

This was an aspect that I felt I did pretty well on. I tried to make sure that after every statement I made about rhetorical strategies or situations, I immediately analyzed it for why it mattered. I tried to include how the strategies made the reader feel and how the author intended for the reader to feel. 

Am I using evidence in a meaningful way and explaining relevance?

When looking for evidence I tried to find quotes that were the most chocked full of connotation and rhetoric. I put a lot of effort into finding the BEST quote for each situation and I think I effectively made them relevant and explained them in the context of my essay. 

Did I leave the reader wanting more and answer the "so what" question? 

To be honest the conclusion is DEFINITELY the place I need the most work. I really struggled to not make it a summary of my essay. But I had a hard time thinking of any other way that would work for me. So I would have to say that no, I don't leave the reader wanting more, and actually wrap up my essay which I will definitely be trying to fix. And I ABSOLUTELY need to add in the "so what" question because right now it is a really bland and formulaic conclusion. And wow what a lame conclusion sentence. I need to work on my conclusion a LOT. 

Punctuation, Part 1

I have chosen 3 chapters out of the Punctuation section of the book that I will examine and analyze in this post. The topics I chose are the comma, the unnecessary comma, and the semicolon. I chose these based on difficulties and/or confusions I have had on these topics in my past writing.

Whytock, Ken "T-shirt Slogan: Punctuation saved grandma's life."
03/02/14 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

The comma

Ah the comma. What a mixed relationship I have with the comma. First of all, I have always gotten mixed signals when it comes to adding a comma after the 2nd to last item in a list, before the "and blah blah". However this book claims that it is definitely recommended, so that was kind of nice to have that cleared up a bit after all these years. And to find out that I wasn't doing it wrong for a decade. I also learned a little about how the comma can change the meaning of a sentence, if only slightly. I didn't know that when a date is inverted you don't need a comma, so that was new. However I personally love commas, and like to use them to prevent confusion like the book advises. However as we will see in my next analyzed Punctuation chapter, I maybe love them a little too much sometimes. 

Unnecessary commas

Yep I definitely can be over-prone to commas. But I never really knew the exact rules. I think the most surprising to me was that you aren't supposed to use a comma after the last item in a series. In my head I sometimes naturally pause there in the sentence and this makes me add an unnecessary comma. Also there isn't supposed to be a comm between compound elements that aren't independent clauses, which is something I also know I do, but can't really recognize the exact instances of. Looking throughout this chapter I notice a LOT that I have to improve on. Just in a 2nd or 3rd reading of my draft I can eliminate about 20 commas. However I definitely have to show this chapter to my friend because I've been telling her some of these rules for years and she's been denying them. So HA, I win. Just kidding. 

The semicolon

Before this year, I really didn't know much about when to use a semicolon at all. But with that whole "semicolon movement" I have at least a basic idea of when to use them, although the movement's definition is very different from the book's. I was able to get a much better grasp on the semicolon after reading this. From what I can gather, the semicolon is used mostly before an example or "in fact" is listed. I don't think I use the semicolon often enough at all, and I will for sure be going back through my draft to check for more opportunities to use these handy little guys.


Reflection

While reading Carrie Belle and Grace's drafts, I noticed that they were on two different spectrums. Like me, Grace tended to use some unnecessary commas, and I feel like being able to recognize it in her writing helped me to learn how to recognize it in my own. For example in her sentence "He says that the general population makes vaccination decisions based on emotions and how devastated they would feel if their child got Polio, rather than statistics, and the fact that the last Polio case seen in the US was in 1979 and the Polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced (Perkins, 2013)" has an unnecessary comma after "statistics", which I learned in chapter 33a of the reading. 

Conversely, Carrie Belle's draft could benefit from a few more commas. But I am hesitant to tell her to add too many commas because I might tell her to add too many... However in her sentence "After the groundwork of basic understanding on the subject has been laid down for the reader Parry employs appeals to emotion in order to truly capture the reader’s more in depth understanding of genetic engineering" I felt confident in recommending that she add a comma after "reader" after my reading in 32j about adding commas to avoid confusion.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Dear Peer Reviewers,

First of all in the introduction, do you think I take too much time getting to my point? I think I might, but I also think that it is important to give a little background knowledge before I just dive in. Throughout the paper I tried in several places to make sure I was addressing my audience directly. But I'm not positive how effective I was in doing this. If you have advice on if I need to do that more or less or better, please let me know.

Also I'm not sure if the 3rd body paragraph stating the analytical claim was effective or just redundant. Or if you have any ideas for what any additional paragraphs could be able that would be great, because I feel like it could use a few more. And by the way, I promise I will make the title more interesting.

Here is my draft, let me know what you think and thank you in advance!

Jaybird "Thank you everyone!" 03/03/07 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic