Genre conventions that I will aim to adhere to are targeting the audience which shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The more engaged the reader is with the paper, the more positive they will feel about the paper. Relating things to the audience shouldn't be too hard since a lot of people are involved in my topic or have at least heard of it. Active voice will be vital in keeping the reader engaged so I plan to do that as well. I might go back and reword some things to try and use the kairos and chronos method of anticipation because I realized how good of a tool that is for convincing. Using those methods would be a good way to be creative in the paper because it would take some thinking from a different viewpoint. I really like it when you get your audience to think about things in a different way. Voice is extremely important in a paper because it determines how a reader feels as they read and its surprising how much a few sentences can change how the reader looks at other areas of the paper. It can be both good and bad depending how you use it. Overall you have to find a way to connect to your audience through voice, structure, how the paper is presented.
In our final paper there are many elements of diction genre. Some of these elements include using active voice no “to be”, having certain source and siting requirements, page requirements, being specific and fair to both sides while following a logical flow with arguments. I will be using genre in a social aspect to zone in on a particular audience; write how students would read my paper. My paper is on a newer scientific controversial topic so I have to use genre in science and show all the recent changing accomplishments in the field. Genre is very important to a paper, as Ms. Tshider said on Wednesday, genre is always linked to power, and as the writer of a convince and persuade paper we have all the power and genre in our hands.
The diction genre creates boundaries in writing such as no “to be” verbs, etc. In some senses the genre slightly pushes the writer to be creative with the paper by using active voice and getting all passive, commonly used words and sentences, out. From there, the writer has the structure of the paper set up from the genre and can be creative with that. Genre also includes visuals and diagrams. You can spice up the genre a bit by adding visuals the writer feels to be appropriate.
When writing in the genre to inform convince and persuade structure, audience, and voice are all very important.
For a paper to be effectively informative, it should have a proper structure. This means being clear and orderly in what is written, if it is not written in a clear manner, the reader may not understand quite what is being discussed, and they will be improperly informed.
Considering your audience is key when writing a paper. Your audience will determine your style of writing, whether is aggressive, sympathetic ect. You must write to appeal to the certain audience. You want to appear to have credibility by being honest and ethical in what you are saying, an audience will not be properly persuaded if they that you are unethical in your means of persuasion.
The voice used when writing is another aspect to writing these papers that largely make a difference in how the paper will affect the reader. We want to eliminate passive voice so that the writing remains interesting and memorable. We want more action words so that the paper does not seem to pointlessly ‘drone on’.
I will attempt to make use of all these aspects of writing in my paper to make it a well-written and effective paper. I will attempt to keep my information organized and presented in a manner that has a good ‘flow’ and will make sense to the reader. I will also try to make sure to explain thoroughly any topic that may confuse the reader, so that they will have a full understanding of my issue. I will be sure to cite sources of information so the reader knows that the information is coming from a reliable source, and so that they know that I am a responsible writer by not taking credit for information that is not mine originally. I will also be sure to point out arguments from the opposite side of the topic, so that they are made aware of other points of view on the issue. I have done my best in my writing to eliminate passive voice so that my writing is more interesting and will hopefully captivate and hold the readers interest.
There are many genre conventions to which I will adhere. I will use formal diction because this is a formal paper. It also makes the paper sound more professional and does not speak down to the reader. I will use active voice in my paper because we are required to. Active voice tends to be more descriptive and flowing. I will use academic sources because that adds to the creditability of my paper. If I used bad or non-creditable sources then my paper would not be taken seriously. I will meet the page requirement because I would like full credit. I have written both the history and the controversy already. The history has been written first to inform the reader about the issue. Then both sides of the controversy are presented. Both sides are equally presented so we don’t short change the reader and they are fully aware of the issues and arguments on both sides of the controversy. The next step is to convince the reader to that the side you are arguing for is correct and something should be done. This is done because you must convince your reader before you persuade them. It is unethical to persuade before you have convinced. I will also use the sandwich method with my quotes to fully inform the reader of the meaning and the creditability of the quote. It is important to sandwich your quotes because they should not stand-alone and they must be interpreted so the reader clearly understands what you interpreted the quote to mean. I am presenting both sides of the controversy because it is unethical to argue one side when the reader is not fully informed about the other side. I am also using specific arguments and examples in my paper to clearly show the reader my point. I am also using logical flow in my paper to create a flow. It is hard to follow a paper that jumps around from one topic to the next, so I am writing mine so the reader can follow the topics. If you confuse your reader you are not going to convince them, they will just be left confused.
I will try to adhere to many genres in my paper. I will try to eliminate all of the passive voice throughout my paper. This means I will be trying to use all active voice. This will help me as a writer to be more persuasive and have more meaning behind my words. It will increase the power that I can add to my paper as well. I could also write more for my audience. This would make the paper seem more interesting. It would also make the reader want to understand where I am coming from with the points I have made. I could also refurbish my diction. I could make the paper easier to understand; so all audiences could read it. This would increase the knowledge of the younger generations about my topic. Another thing that I could do would be to put more logic in my paper. This will make it so everyone can understand my exact train of thought. Then, the audience will know where I am coming from in the decisions that I make about my paper.
I can also be inventive and creative within the bounds that I have set for myself. I can think up new ideas about the moral and ethics behind what is already stated. I can also use pictures to invoke other’s imaginations more clearly. By making the reader more interested in my paper by using these ideas, I can make my paper more understood and wanted by the readers. This would enhance the overall experience of reading my paper.
I will try and include genres throughout my paper. These genres will be writing style and form, formal voice eliminating the passive voices in my paper, persuasion, and diction. Style will be written according to my audience and how I see fit on how much education and knowledge they have on the subject, I will fill them in with history and information about my topic first and then persuade them with facts. This way my paper will be easier to read and understand. Active voice will be used without passive voices or forms of “to be” to make my paper sound more credible and believable. Active voice will also bring my reader in and make the paper more interesting to sit down and read the whole entire paper instead of being bored and quit reading the paper I wrote using passive voice. Persuasion will include history that I pointed out in the “debriefing” part of my paper and use information that counteracts the other side’s opposition.
I will be creative in the fact, I will include pictures of what I am trying to prove and state in my paper to help my persuasion. I will include stories to touch the reader’s lives to set an emotional appeal throughout my paper. My paper will be fun and exciting to read but yet easy and hard on the issues at hand at the same time. I think having an exciting paper will make the reader want to read it as well as enjoy reading it. Using active voice and including ethos, pathos and logos throughout the paper as well will fulfill the requirements of bring my reader in.
Some of the genre that I have adhered to is active voice, no forms of “to be”. Also source requirements, using sources, and citing your sources. Another is the page requirement of 16 pages. Organization, starting with history and using sandwich method. Formal paper, no contractions such as “don’t”. Being fair to both side of the controversy. And logical flow, premises. These are important to writing our paper since it gives use structure. The genre sets the time period and style for the paper. It develops the social aspects.
Within these bonds of writing there is still a lot of room to be inventive and creative. I was able to up with a controversy of choice. I choose what I wanted to argue for and against. I choose the arguments I wanted to use. And I was able to search for the sources I wanted to back my arguments. There is a lot of flexibility within the requirements to make your paper our own, the requirements just sets up the structure and flow of your paper. Within the structure and flow your paper is your own.
There are many different genre conventions to which I will adhere to in my paper. Our paper has many different elements of genre, many of which I have used in my own paper. Even though I am adhering to these conventions, I am still able to be creative.
One of these major elements includes using a two-sided argument. It is necessary in our paper to use an argument that has two distinct sides and to argue both sides. I have done this because my topic is file-sharing, and the two different sides include people who approve of file-sharing, and those who think that it should stay illegal and have consequences.
Another important aspect in our genre includes the type of writing. For example, these include the formal diction, having logical flow, and using the sandwich method. I haven’t looked too much into the formal diction, so I am not sure how much I am adhering to this aspect. However, I believe that I have used logical flow and the sandwich method throughout my paper. Sometimes I have trouble organizing my paper to make it flow and I have tried to successfully make my paper logical. By using the sandwich method, I introduce what I’m going to say, I say it, and then I interpret it, and transition into my next point.
These aspects are important in our papers because if you are going to accurately persuade people, there needs to be organization. Using a two-sided argument makes it easy on the reader and makes it easier to understand what is going on when there are only two sides. Also, it makes you more credible and they are more likely to be persuaded when you use formal diction and have logical flow. Also, by using the sandwich method, the reader can fully understand what you’re trying to say.
There are many different ways to be creative, despite these boundries. While I need to use a two-sided argument, there are many different arguments out there, and this convention of genre was not limiting at all. Also, by needing to use active voice and formal diction, it can push the writer to use more active verbs. This way, the writing seems much more creative because the writing has a larger variety in vocabulary. When using a logical flow and the sandwich method, it is only restricting in the set up of the writing, and not restricting in the content. Because of this, it leaves open many areas of creativity so that you can write about whatever you want within that guided outline.
In my paper for genres I will include style, register/diction, structure/forum, active voice, persuasion, audience and others. For style I will choose one that fits my selected audience and that makes me sound credible and present my information in a manner that will be regarded with respect. Register/diction will be presented in a way that makes it easy for my audience to follow but not make them feel as if they do not know what is going on. For structure/forum I will right so that the structure is in a paper format in a way that is logical and something that will be easily followed. I will write in active voice to make myself sound like I really know what I’m talking about and try to pull the reader in by using powerful language and writing techniques. I will also use my writing to persuade people to believe in what I have to say in a way that is not forceful but still pulls them in. Also I will write to an audience that has some idea of what previous arguments but yet is still searching for more. Writing to a specific audience will help me shape my paper. Also this will help me to better get a feel for my writing because it will have a specific purpose and will allow me to be more creative and insightful when I write.
I will be inventive and creative with in my paper by having fun with writing it. When I am writing to an audience I can write like I am talking to them trying to pull them into what I have to say. Having fun and being creative with the writing will help me write a paper that looks and sounds better when read. Being creative is a little harder in a paper like this because it a little more serious. To be creative takes some work but is achievable. What I have to do is find stories and quotes that will fit into my paper and be prime examples for my arguments. I will try to make them as compelling as possible so I can take hold of the reader and hopefully have them switch to my side w/out any doubt. Being inventive might even be harder then being creative. Yet to be creative I will have to be inventive at the same time. If my opponent has an argument that is hard to argue against I will have to come up with a way to argue it with an argument that isn’t quite as strong. When doing that I will have to choose my words carefully and by language selection I will be able to sound more knowledgeable then my opponent and produce an argument that sounds better.
My paper on same-sex marriages includes an informative and persuasive style. I tried to persuade my audience in being for same-sex marriages and I still have to persuade a little more in the additional two pages. It is important because I will try to persuade my audience to do something about the inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I first stated the points on homosexual relationships in the past. My paper is currently at the present time. It is in the present time because same-sex marriages are not allowed in any state, yes there are civil unions but no one living in the United States have the right to marry there lover of the same-sex. I tried to used active voice throughout my paper, but yet there still might be a little passive voice in my paper, I will try and correct that for my final draft. Throughout my paper I tried to avoid the contractions, and I think I might have done a good job with that but that is about it. In my paper, I am going to try and connect my visuals into the body of my text, and refer to the picture that are located in the appendix. I want to try and find more visuals that are meaningful to my paper. I think I might have used a little too many quotes from the authors I used, I need to read my paper over and over to get things out of my paper that I do not need. All of these items are important because they make a better paper overall. In the paper we have been writing there were certain paper requirements, and I had a little trouble meeting them with my history, so I have to go back and add more history so I can have the right amount of page numbers.
How will I be inventive and creative within these bounds is a good question. I will try to do something unique that no one has done. I want to find really good visuals to relate into my paper. Maybe a unique way of something would be to describe a certain situation I have been in related to my topic. Maybe I can take a poll around campus or around my dorm and see how many people are for and against same-sex marriages and if they would do anything to help push the government in allowing same-sex marriages. I guess I need to brainstorm a little more on everything. But one thing I do have to mention is that I am so happy this is my last writing assignment.
The genres that I will adhere to in this paper are things like page requirement, topic of a controversy, and an attempt to write in an active voice. I think the biggest genre that I will follow is the general structure of the paper, formatted through premises. I will attempt to adhere to all these requirements that are given to me by the teacher as means to follow instruction and the outline requirements of the paper. These genres are important first off because I will be graded on my ability to adhere to these genres, further motivating me to follow these genres. These genres are also important as means to write a thro and convincing paper. I think that the genres are enough so that there are certain guidelines provided however, I think they leave room for creativity. One way that I will be creative in these boundaries is by first choosing a topic of my own personal interest or one which I an interested in studying. I think once again the boundaries are open in deciding what side you lay on, whether it is for or against your controversy. In deciding your position, I think that you get the ultimate creativity in deciding how your paper is going to be received, what points you want to stress, and what side you want to convince your audience of. I think just some general genres on what the paper is required to do, is essential in getting across the type of paper one wants to read. I hope to fulfill all these genre requirements in my paper while being creative and persuasive with in these boundaries.
The genre we follow for this paper has some specific guidelines to which we must adhere. For instance, one of the key requirements is length. Our paper is to be sixteen pages in length. This requirement is actually important, while the paper may seem extremely long at first I found that over time the requirement is not extensive. I do not believe that I could properly make my case with enough information to be persuasive in anything less than sixteen pages. Another important genre convention we follow is the use of active voice. The active voice really enhances a paper. It was difficult for me to get used to using active voice, but I realize that my paper does sound much better with that form in place. Along with that active voice we follow another genre convention in the general way the paper is written. Keeping in mind audience is a key to a successful paper. In this project I am writing to my peers who are educated but may be unfamiliar with the topic. By keeping this in mind as well as my genre convention I believe that my paper sounds intelligent but also understandable. My genre would change if I were writing to a group of scientists or experts in the field. I believe that this is the most important part of genre. No matter how good a paper may be, if it is not written with the audience in mind it will not be a successful piece.
While there are several restrictions that keep my paper with the genre mentioned above, I have found ways to make my paper unique. I have included headings in my paper that help to divide it in the way that I feel will be most influential. In addition I have displayed my creativity in my writing. For instance I have used a person experience to help illustrate one of my main arguments. This personal account gives my paper its own identity while staying within my genre boundaries. Lastly, I have included photos as part of my paper. These pictures allow me to make points more poignant while maintaining the formalities of the genre. By using several small things to enhance my paper I believe that my creativity shines through.
There are a lot of genre specifics that I’ve thought about while writing my paper. The major thing that I’ve been concerned with is active voice. Sometimes I read my paper specifically to find all of the passive voice and try to take it out. This is important because active voice is much more persuasive, descriptive, and direct. The other major type of genre that I will use is a specific style. When talking about animals it is very important to say things in a specific way. For example, it’s really important to use the right kinds of words when talking about animals that are abused. When being persuasive, you want to use powerful language without embellishing so much that the audience doesn’t think you’re telling the truth. Since many people in the United States go to the circus, I had to be careful about what I said about people who support the circus. My paper is very audience-specific. It is geared toward the common public who has seen many animals in the circus without giving it a second thought.
I think that my paper is the most persuasive by how I organize it. For example, first describing how cute and innocent animals are and then describing how miserable their lives are. I tried to do this to catch people into feeling very badly for the animals. I also think that my visual aids will be very persuasive. They say a lot in a way that everyone understands them. Creativity with the active voice worked to my advantage.
It forced me to think of new vocabulary and even though it took a long time to revise some of the sentences, at the end the sentences were much more powerful. I also learned new forms of sentence structure that put variety into my paper. This will keep the audiences attention and make them think about every single sentence. I think that every sentence has a specific impact and is important to my paper. By making every sentence unique, it makes every sentence stand out more by itself.
1. Obviously this paper is going to be in a convincing or persuading style. Another feature of this genre will be that it is a current event in the sense that it is a topic of debate currently affecting politics in our country. The paper will be structured in a way to inform the reader of the topic, then gradually try to convince them that same-sex marriage should be allowed. Because the paper is very long, it will also utilize transitions, citations, and quotations in order to properly support my opinion of the topic. This will also help make my opinion credible and therefore, something the reader could actually agree with. The most important thing is I want to persuade the reader to believe my side of the argument so any facts, quotations, or other useful things will come in handy.
2. In order to be creative, I want to be able to pull examples from real life of people dealing with this issue. I want to point out how not being able to get married because they are gay will affect them financially and why it's wrong to prevent them from getting married. I think statistics are huge in supporting an argument and statistics on how much financial gain there is by being married would be a nice way to convince the reader that preventing gay marriage is wrong and goes against our constitutional right as Americans to have equal rights for everyone. When people get married, there are tax benefits, shared medical insurance, social security benefits, the right to inheritance in case of death, sick leave from work, military leave, and other benefits that gay couples are not able to receive. I don't find that to be fair so I want to convince the readers that it is wrong to single out the gay community with this law.
I'm so stress right now. I have a math and a chem exam tommorw. I still don't understand some of the material. Anyone else feeling stressed out?
The hardest arguments to refute from the opponents side would be the whole issue of religion being against same-sex marriages. Gods ideal marriage is between one women and one man in the purpose of creating children. Many people in the United States are religious and may oppose the marriages of same-sex marriages. This leads to people not supporting same-sex marriages.
Yes religion is very important, but not everyone is religious. Everyone should be given the same amount of treatment through religion and the law. Since men and women are only suppose the be brought together, what happens when a couple are physically not able to produce children? Are they also not suppose to marry? They are allowed to marry so what not allow people of the same sex marry. Another issue is that very religious people are still getting divorce. Many people are not keeping marriage true and committed. Another issue is the law. The government is said to keep church and state separate, so why does it keep coming up from political leaders that, God intended marriage to be between and man and a woman.
Many people get married not only for the purpose of religion. Many people of different religions unite in marriage. Both the male and female may not even be religious, marriage doesn’t always mean that it has to be religious. What is the point of getting married at a church if the couple doesn’t even go to the church. Several couples show up a couple times out of the year, just so they can be members at the church. Marriage is shown as it is out of love not just religion and marriage is different for everyone.
There are a couple arguments from the opposing side of the controversy of therapeutic cloning that are hard to refute. These include the idea of destroying an embryo as immoral, there is no clear line between reproductive and therapeutic cloning, and there are better alternatives to use.
I will refute the argument of destroying an embryo is immoral by offering an opposite argument. The embryo is not allowed to live past the fourteen day stage, women with pro-choice can freely have an abortion after that point (liberty), and embryos are taken from in-vitro fertilization clinics where they would have been thrown in the trash can otherwise. I will use the value of liberty while adding in opposite arguments as to why destroying the embryo should not be considered destruction in the first place.
The second argument is harder to refute. Seperating reproductive and therapeutic cloning is hard for anyone to do. They are two completely different processes yet if you add just one step to therapeutic cloning it becomes reproductive cloning. I will refute by offering an opposite argument to the premise saying there are laws against reproductive cloning now just how there will always be and if scientists really would like to participate in reproductive cloning and laws wont stop them, nothing will stop them now or ever. I will also bring up the fact that therapeutic cloning research is legal in some other countries so if scientists once again wanted to practice reproductive cloning along with therapeutic at this point and time they could just go to another country. The problem I run into is refuting the fact that many scientists are wishy washy on this issue. Some scientists who support therapeutic cloning and support the ban on reproductive cloning still believe there could be benefits to reproductive cloning. Some scientists get my side into trouble by supporting the right idea while voicing ideas of hope on the part of reproductive cloning, the most controversial area of cloning.
I agree with the argument made that there are better alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. I will support both sides of my contreversy by saying adult stem cell research could have the same benefits as embryonic stem cell research and could someday eliminate the controversy of using embryos for research. The deal is, to use alternatives to embryonic stem cells scientists need to know exactly how embryonic cells work to be able to program the adult cells and make them adopt the positive qualities of the embryonic cells. Whether you support adult stem cell research or embryonic, the embryonic research needs to happen before scientific work goes further on adult stem cell research.
Arguments Hardest to Refute
The arguments of my opponents’ that will be hardest to refute would be when they argue that downloading files is illegal, how much money record companies are losing, and how individuals who download are slowly ruining the music for the future. These arguments are the hardest to convince because you have to convince people that although it is breaking the law it is for a better cause. Then the opposition has all of the self-pity stories of how workers have been fired because of individuals who download files illegally. Once again the stories are true, but you have to argue that it was only a matter of time before something like this happened, and in all reality their can be a positive even for the workers who got fired.
When the opposition argues that downloading files is illegal they are speaking the truth. To counter the opposition’s argument I will argue an opposite argument as to why although downloading files is illegal it had to happen. The main argument I will produce is that the music industry as a whole is changing to the faster and larger digital world. And also the digital world comes in forms that are extremely cheaper, or in the illegal sense at no cost. I know people won’t be able to always download for free and I won’t be a supporter for keeping the downloads free. What I want people to see is that this process that the music industry is going through is for a better reason. That there is a change going on from hardware materials used for music to software materials. It is similar to the process of cassette tapes to cds, but far more changing in its effects.
In all reality, the change of music going digital is all for the better, and that is what I have to argue against the opposition. I have no doubt in my mind that this change will be positive and that determination will help me refute the opponent’s hardest arguments.
My paper is about the censorship of modern art. I support not censoring art. The argument of my opponents that is the hardest to refute is that bad art should be censored. It is tough because no one wants to look at bad art but the other problem is that bad art is a matter of opinion. Everyone has a different idea of what art is bad. I have one source that argues for censoring art very well. I will use multiple ways of discrediting this argument. For one of the arguments I will use value questioning to discredit this argument. One does not have the right to judge what is good or bad for someone else. And we have the first amendment to protect us. I will also discredit the argument by disproving the premises. What is bad art does not hold true in all cases.
The other argument for censorship of art is not all art is appropriate for all viewers. This one is hard to refute because not all is appropriate for everyone. I will refute this by asking who defines what is appropriate? That would be a moral issue. I could also disapprove premises because it doesn’t stand in all circumstances. The only thing an organization can do it state that the art may not be appropriate for all ages.
Sarah Litherland
Fat tax arguments: hard to refute
The hardest arguments that are to refute, is the argument that soda, candy and junk food are unhealthy, and over consumed. If the government stepped in and taxed these foods, they would be consumed less. The taxes on these foods would be used for good, or so the government claims. I will refute the arguments by saying that it is the citizen’s choice not the government’s choice to tax the foods that we choose to eat. The concept of fat tax in reality is a statement of our freedom. I plan to make proposals for the opponent. One proposal is the idea that say there is a small tax, it be on soda alone, and that the tax dollars are guaranteed to go to the health departments. Then, maybe fat tax would be a good idea, but for now it is a moral situation. Morally, as citizens of the United States, we have the choice to choose to consume junk food or not to.
The other argument is the fact that American citizens are unhealthy due to the fact that the food that they consume the food that they can afford. Unhealthy foods are less more affordable. Thus, unhealthy foods are consumed more. The proposal or refute that I plan to make for this situation, is that the companies that produce junk foods, be given a tax break for packaging and selling more “healthy” foods.
The big refute that I feel is valid for the fat taxes, is that as citizens we do not know where the tax is going. It is our money, and we have the right to do with it what we choose.
The argument made by my opponent that is hardest to refute is the argument about how therapeutic cloning can benefit our society. Therapeutic cloning is cloning to heal people instead of to create more people. The argument says that organs could be cloned that would not be rejected by the person receiving them and there would be a much shorter waiting list, since the organs needed could be cloned. Therapeutic cloning could also cure diseases like diabetes and parkinsons disease. This argument is hard to refute because of all the benefits therapeutic cloning seems to have. It seems to be all benefits with no negative effects at all. It is the perfect way to solve many of the worlds problems. This is why it is so hard to refute, because it is perfect. Or is it? The world may never know. But, if you think about the argument more you can start seeing it is not perfect but in fact flawed in many ways, and can be refuted.
First I plan to refute the argument through questioning values. Therapeutic cloning involves the killing of fertilized human embryos, and that is wrong. I will also challenge the premise of therapeutic cloning being able to cure diseases. Recently, scientists have reported that parkinsons disease can probably not be cured through therapeutic cloning. Since therapeutic cloning cannot cure the diseases it promised to cure, it should be banished from the land. And also we don’t have the technology to use therapeutic cloning, so it would involve time and money to research this, and anything you have to do extensive research on isn’t worth researching at all.
I am having a hard time refuting the argument that states vaccinations not needed in the twenty first century. Numerous facts and data demonstrate the adverse health effects of vaccines. Vaccines are historically proven effective, yet in recent decades more controversial arguments have aroused. The elimination of some diseases supports the use of vaccines yet. I am having a hard time finding recent data that includes vaccines being a mandatory procedure. A lot of the information supporting the use of mandatory vaccinations may be said to be “outdated.” I accept the fact that a lot of the supporting evidence records from past decades yet; the past provides proven supporting information. I plan on acknowledging the adverse health effects that may result from the use of vaccines. I also plan to compare the chance of adverse health effects versus becoming infected with a deadly disease. My strongest arguments will rely on statistical data, stating the low probability of adverse health effects. I will state the safety benefits and reinforce the popular practice of immunizations. I will make a point to state that it is not rational to compare the low statistical data of reported adverse health effects versus the benefits of immunizations. Hopefully, I will be able to explain some type of reasoning why certain individuals react negatively to vaccines. Being aware of allergic reactions or other health conditions may help prevent adverse health effects. I also will provide information supporting certain individuals that are at high risk or adverse health effects to refrain from using certain vaccines. Much statistical data contains information stating many vaccines are totally unnecessary.
The hardest argument to refute that my opponents make, is that the operation is beneficial to single animals that are always indoors, as well as pets that are allowed to roam freely. Many of them are unaware of the medical benefits that result from having their pet spayed or neutered, so you have to inform them of the risks, and then make them realize that their pets life could be lengthened and improved from having the operation.
Another argument made by opponents that is somewhat difficult to refute is that the operation is ‘too expensive’. This is hard to argue against because every individual has a different income and thus different idea of what ‘expensive’ denotes. The best way I have come up with to argue that the operation will still be beneficial despite its cost, is that no matter how much money you make, the cost of a spay or neuter operation will still be less than the treatment of ailments eliminated by the operation will cost. From that one may conclude that in the long run, he or she will be saving money.
One more argument my opponents like to make is one based on luxury. Many owners feel that it is a waste to spay or neuter their ‘pure-bread’ cat or dog. They think that they may even be able to make money off their pet’s offspring. Data shows that this is an assumption that should be looked at differently. Nearly half of animals euthenized in animal shelters are indeed pure-bread. Therefore pure-bread animals are just as major part of the problem of overpopulation as mixed breed animals are. Other statistics show that people often do not make much money off their pure-bread pups or kittens. Usually only breeders that already have a reputation and business set up benefit from selling pups and kittens.
I find that there are not many arguments that are hard to refute. Most arguments consist of using animals for safety of substances that have already been proven. There is no need to continue testing cosmetics on animals because most cosmetic products are already in use and haven’t done any harm. I plan to refute this argument by stating that animal testing in no longer needed for cosmetics in today’s times. I can prove this by stating if cosmetics were dangerous, why would so many people use them. I can disprove or find a fault in their logic because they have no reason for testing to continue to exist.
Another argument would be that animal testing is not needed in the medical world. Testing is needed for medicine to further today’s research and discover cures to new diseases. Although, as the world advances, we probably won’t need animal testing anymore, the rate at which we are at now, we definitely need it. One can refute this argument by showing all of the benefits that animal testing has provided for the medicinal world. One can state all of the previous inventions due to animal research and find how beneficial it proves to be. By knowing this, I can equally refute the statements given by people who don’t support animal research for medicine.
- The hardest argument that I have trying to refute is mainly ethical concerns when talking about same-sex marriage. I believe it should be legal for homosexual couples to marry and the opponents of my opinion say that it is unethical and they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage.
- The reason I'm having trouble with this topic is mainly due to the fact that I need to somehow convince the audience that marriage today has lost much of its values and ethics already. By doing this, I can explain how allowing same-sex marriages would not change society ethically. The sanctity of marriage would still exist. Many male/female couples don't follow the values and ethics of marriage anyway. I don't have a lot of trouble arguing against "the sanctity of marriage" argument but it is the most common argument against same-sex marriage.
- What I want to do to refute their argument is to focus on marriage as a whole in the current generation. By showing how the sanctity of marriage is gone already in most cases, it will show that homosexual couples would do nothing to hurt marriage in this country. I will use examples such as dating reality television shows, high divorce rate, married couples that are not religious, and the high rate of infedelity among couples. One argument I may pose would be to talk about how a climbing divorce rate only shows how the sanctity of marriage is losing its value already. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to each other but society as a whole has a hard time following that religious rule. Even highly religious couples get divorced. My grandparents are a perfect example of a highly religious couple that got divorced. Both of them are highly into their faith but their marriage was not worth sticking it out until the day they die.
For my paper I argue for genetic engineering. It is hard to argue against GMOs when it comes to labeling and effecting surrounding organisms. When it comes to labeling I agree that a consumer has the right to know what is in the food they are purchasing and consuming, but it becomes hard when you think how someone is suppose to go about labeling GMOs. What is considered as a GMO and how is someone supposed to know the different genes within the product. It is hard to know were a peanut gene into another organism is going to act like a peanut and have an allergic reaction like one. Plus is would cost more money to package the GMOs since they have to take time and figuring what is the GMO product and whether there are allergic reactions. To discredit this argument I would use values, economy and capitalism over safety and responsibility.
Not only labeling but also surrounding organisms may be harmed by GMOs is in question. The genes of the GMO may be transferred to another organism, making that organism the GMO traits, which would not be good. Although this is a good theory there is no proof that this could happen. This one of the arguments made by the environmentalist, but it can be justified. To tire this argument down I would use credibility and not enough data.
There are many side arguments on the other side of my issue that may be hard to refute. The topic of my paper is file-sharing, and downloading music is illegal. I think that the fact that downloading music is illegal and that it violates copyrighted material will be hard to argue against. Another argument that goes along with this, is the idea that musicians work long and hard for their music and it is artistic talent that is being taken away.
It is hard to argue against the idea that downloading music wrong because a person downloads something that is copyrighted, because many people believe that if something is copyrighted, people shouldn’t be able to copyright it. Many people would think that if we allow copyrighted music to be downloaded for free, then what other copyrighted material may be next? It is also hard to argue against the idea of musicians deserving credit for their artistic work that they have put into their music. This is hard to argue against because it is a general value that people have that people should be paid for the work that they do. When people put lots of time into making an album, they should be compensated for that work, rather than have people receive all of their music for free.
I think that I plan on refuting both of these arguments in the same way. Discrediting the premises would probably be most effective. I could argue that in the music industry, almost all music is borrowed. Many songs have been re-written, multiple “different” songs contain the same beats and musical themes in the background, and musicians are always borrowing music from each other. Making this claim would discredit the premise that it would violate copyright laws, because in the music industry, is anything really truly original enough to merit a copyright if it is all borrowed from one another? This would also work with the idea that people work long and hard and deserve credit for their work, because if they are borrowing form other people, then they aren’t really working that hard.
Since beginning my paper of Chronic Wasting Disease, I have not only learned a great deal about my side of the controversy but about the other side as well. Those who believe CWD is a dangerous threat and support drastic action to curb the problem do make some points that I find hard to refute. First and foremost, CWD is a relatively new disease, which has only been in recognized in the last 30 years. As a result we do not have a great deal of evidence supporting either side. However when I try to argue that the meat from cervids in safe to consume I do not have long term scientific studies. So far CWD has not passed from animal to humans. Yet the other side can use the fact that more testing needs to be done and that we cannot assume safety standards. This argument is popular among the general public. I can argue all day that we have not had any transmission to humans, but the fact of the matter is that we do not have hard, irrefutable evidence for either side. Those on the opposing side say that it is better to be safe and wait until long term testing is completed.
It seems that the argument I have taken on is logical and would probably win support for the opposing side; I have found a way to counter this. While I may accept the fact that there is some inherent risk in consuming meat from cervids that carry CWD, I would also like to point out the risks we take every day. Each and every day thousands of people flock to grocery stores to pick up beef, pork, and chicken out of meat cases. Each time this is done the person is taking a risk. There have been hundreds of meat recalls because of contamination, and these contaminations have led to deaths. Cervids on the other hand have not killed anyone and to this day all evidence has pointed to CWD not passing to humans. In my argument I am essentially trying to bring CWD back into perspective.
My paper addresses the controversy of the smoking ban being implemented in Minneapolis and St. Paul bars and restaurants. My paper is intended to support and promote the ban further promoting a better public health. However, opposing arguments have much support around the twin cities. It is really hard to actually know if the business economy of Minneapolis a St. Paul will be effected by this new ban. Business owners around the Twin cities are preparing for a drastic decline in business and circulation. One way that I am going to attempt to refute this argument is in the hope that is all business around the cities abide by this now smoking ban, business’ alike will not suffer for all have conformed to non smoking. Another big argument that opponents arise is that smoking is a human right and the government has no right to take away a hobby of millions of Americans. This is the argument that I am the hardest for me to refute. I have found that the only way that I can refute this argument is through which values should humans have in mind. So the argument for public health should be above that of individual rights. It seems that only the individual smoker experiences the pleasure of the actual act of smoking while scientific evidence supports that both the individual as a well as those around experience the harms of this drug. So I am going to argue that the value of public health is more important than that of individual pleasure.
Arguments that are hard to refute for my topic would be the fact that animal testing has produced many favorable results. It has been done for years and has helped to develop the polio vaccine, insulin and many other diseases. It has even made make-ups and cleaners safer for human use.
Testing on animals has been around for years with good results. The scientific world still uses it today despite improved technology. It is hard to say something is bad when it has produced so many good results. How do you argue that animal testing is bad when it may have in some way saved your life or the life of someone you know. Testing has also helped to test artificial hearts lungs and bionic limbs.
Although I plan to argue that although animal testing has produced favorable results it is immoral especially since now days alternatives are available. We have plenty of alternatives that offer the same results faster and cheaper. Not to mention that they save animal lives. Also the results from these tests are more reliable and are more directly related to humans.
This is the new age. The age of technology and we should be using that instead of a life. A life is a life. Companies could expand and be more successful at what they do by embracing this new technology. They would not have to worry about all of the rules and regulations that they have to deal with when having animals as test subjects. In the end it my not take as many workers either and they might be able to save time and essentially lives with this time.
Thought Paper
Katie Sexton
I think that my hardest argument to refute from the opposing side them saying that humans do not need to drink milk. I am trying to write that we do need to drink milk and I have all kinds of facts about the vitamins that are found in milk and what they do for you and your body. However, I am not able to find any research about what would happened if you don’t drink milk. I am not able to find a study that talked about two children one that drank milk and one that didn’t and then had the results of there health. I am also having a hard time extending the argument that you shouldn’t drink milk. It is said that humans are the only mammals to drink milk after 6 months of age but that is not very detailed.
What I plan on doing it writing about how for the past how many years most people have been drinking milk and they have been living longer and longer lives so why do we think now that there needs to be a change. I also plan on talking further about the nutrients found in milk and how they go directly into your body and help you in many different ways and there are not many foods that can do that. I will also discredit there side by saying that I could not find any research saying that you could live a healthier life if you didn’t drink milk.
I am hoping that by doing this I can get my argument across and that by the end of the paper you know more about milk and what it has to offer and why everyone should get there 3-A-Day.
The one argument that my opponents have that is the hardest to refute is the fact that not everyone involved in the circus has committed a crime or mistreated an animal. By not supporting all circuses that have animals, some people argue that we are punishing people who have done no wrong. Many people rely on the circus as their only source of income because it really is a very specialized field. By taking all animals out of the circus, people may be forced to find new jobs and a new way of life. These same people argue that there are laws to shut down specific circuses that do not treat animals well. With these laws, there is no need to make an overall law to ban all animals from the circus.
To refute this argument, I will show that these laws aimed at shutting down only specific circuses that do not comply with certain standards, do not work. They do not scan the circuses sufficiently and there is plenty of evidence that shows that many cases in big circuses are overlooked or difficult to follow up on. Big circuses also have enough money to bribe investigators to be quiet about illegal activities. Wild animals need a lot of care and they are currently not getting what they need to live a happy life. If they are forced to perform than they should also be happy. While fairness to all circuses is important, the animals should be the number one concern. If any animals at all are being abused or mistreated, than animals should be taken out of the circus until an efficient method of watching over them is created. It is critical that while animals are still being mistreated we must boycott all circuses that have animal acts in them. People in the circus may lose their job, even though they were not abusing animals, but until the circus learns how to take care of wild animals, which may be never, they should not be allowed to contain wild animals. I do not think that there is any way that huge, wild animals such as elephants and tigers can live happily in a circus. They need room to roam. This type of refuting will be an example of the value question. We must value the animals' lives more than jobs.
Most of my arguments from the other side are made concerning the legal fees and how costly regulating the pollution in our environment. They don’t really have a lot of facts of just how much money is spent because every situation is different, every state and such. They make a point that companies that are regulated cannot produce as much product and therefore are not efficient because of the standards. Regulation of pollution has an effect on the economy, which is hard to tear down.
You cannot tear down the economy and the effect on it, because there are no facts or statements saying that it doesn’t hurt the economy by the amount of money spent. How can you prove something without credible and reliable sources stating what money is spent and how?
I plan to find credible sources and lots of facts and information that tears down the other side, however, this side requires a lot more digging in depth to find such a thing. There are tons of information that states why pollution is bad for the environment and why we should regulate it but very little to what’s bad about regulating pollution. So I plan to dig deep to find information that counter acts the very established argument to why regulation of pollution is good.
I don’t mind the assignments that we have had. They are not to horrible, it is just that I don’t always understand what is to be done. The papers are long and a lot of work. In high school I never had to write this this long of a paper nor one of this kind of format. So it is just a little hard for me to understand what I am suppose to do. I do like however that at the end I will have one big paper. I hope that I can have it corrected so that it is almost perfect, that would just make my time that I put into it worth it. When writing my papers I try not to use the “to be” form but I always forget what words are considered to be. Other then that I like how you are flexible willing to extend our papers or other assignments if we need to.
One reason I like the assignments right now is the fact we are sticking with our original topics. Although it is the biggest pain for me to revise over and over again this paper, in the end, is going to be one that was worked on for a whole symmester. That is awesome and later on this paper could be referred to, especially if it is in a student’s area of study. The hardest part for me is keeping the amount of pages right. It seems every time I revise my paper I eliminate more and make everything less wordy, but then I have to add more information to keep the page number up. It’s also hard to sort through a ton of sources. There has been a ton of information for my topic especially recent information and it is hard to not get overwhelmed. All in all this paper is a struggle but every time we add something new and peer review everything seems to look a lot better.
The only real problem I find that is the most important would be how relatively new my topic is compared to some of the other topics that students are writing on. Since the topic is a newer one there is not as many things to research on it. I am not saying that some students don’t share the same issue as well. Certain controversies have been around for some time now and numerous studies and facts have been made available. I just wanted to do a paper on something that might hold some degree of interest for some students. And with new information coming out every day it is hard to know just what could happen next. Putting two papers together is a challenge as well. Its good to have two big blocks of information to use, but you are writing a new paper like a jigsaw puzzle making pieces of information fit together. It’s a process of making sure things sound well when put together.
I am really not sick of this assignment. The only thing that I wish that I did differently, is choose a topic that I was interested in. I ended up changing my topic, and it hurt me in the long run. With all of the research that we have done, I have learned a lot about the topic, and since it interests me, it has been good. I am not struggling to meet the page requirements, but I have been struggling to organize my thoughts in a way that makes sense to the reader. I tend to write what is in my head, and I think that it makes sense to other people, but it doesn't. I hope that after reading responses to my paper, that I will be able to organize my thoughts for better understanding.
The only complaint that I have is the first paper. I felt confused with the assignment, and ended up doing it all wrong. The paper was horrible. I think that I would have gone about it completely differently had I known that it was more of a research paper vs. an argumentative paper.
The assignment is good, because I have never had the chance to write a 16 page paper. The paper will be a big accomplishment.
I have never researched a topic in so much depth. I feel like I have done so much reading on my topic. I’m finding it really hard to find unbiased sources. I’m also having a hard time formatting my bibliography page. I’m finding the iterative writing process very helpful. At times it is very difficult to collaborate all my data, yet I feel like I am doing a thorough writing job. I like that I am able to receive grades feedback throughout the writing of the paper and I enjoy that I am able to change my mistakes. Knowing what I am doing wrong helps me in my writing process. I am constantly using forms of “to be.” I proof my papers with the intention of eliminating all of the forms, and I still miss a lot of them. I’m having a really hard time rephrasing my thoughts without using these forms. All in all, so far everything is going pretty smooth. Hopefully, with the base of my paper started, the rest of my writing should be a little bit easier!
I really believe I am learning alot compared to what I started with. I am not a fan of the weekly writing assignments but I will write about that a little later. I learned how not to use the verb to be, and I realize that it does sound a lot better when you don't use it. I really like how we correct our first drafts in class, it helps me out alot to hear what others have to say. The thing that helps out the class is Ms. Tschider. She is always smiling and it makes my day go alot better. You know that guy the dropped this class? A couple girls and I were talking how she did not deserve how he was treating her and we felt really bad. Something out of nowhere is I am always wondering what she is going to be wearing because she always is wearing cutes outfits, but back to the writing. I am struggling with the weekly writing assignments. I really don't understand why but I take forever on them and my quality is not even good. I am also struggling with actually sitting down and researching. I think I might have a disability. My attention span is very short.
The assignments so far have been okay. These weekly thought papers aren’t very hard and we get writing practice. The papers have been a little harder. They take a while to write and you have to keep revising them. The informative papers weren’t too bad, but now we have to have academic sources in our convincing paper, and academic sources are much harder to find. The library’s web site is helping but it is still hard to find six academic sources. Also, I’ve had to work on this paper the same week I’ve had a couple of midterms. I haven’t had much free time at all this week because my time has been divided into writing my paper and studying for my midterms. It has been tough but I’m almost done, and then I can sleep for a few days.
Thought Paper
The assignments are going good. I needed an extension for the second paper, since it took so long to get the corrects back to us. I haven’t gotten sick of my topic yet, which is a good thing. There is so much to learn about genetic engineering. Now that I’m working on the controversies, I have a lot of information. It’s been easy to meet the page requirements.
I'm haeing some troubles. I’m still can not find words in form of “to be.” I haven’t changed any of those yet, but I will. I don’t understand what words are included in the “to be” form. I think a list of them would be helpful.
I don’t really like how we have to do one big paper. I think that we should have to do more individual papers. It would be more interesting for me to have a new topic and it would be easier for me as well. The papers are going ok but its getting harder and harder to find new sources. I also still struggle with the form of “to be”. That is somewhat fustarting when I know it is there but im not sure how to fix it. I think the assignments could also have a little more structure to the directions. I am somewhat confused on some of the expectations or even what the paper should be like. Examples would be nice. I also think there should be more time between each paper to allow for adequate time to get more information and make corrections to the old ones. It is hard to write a new paper when directions are unclear and then go back and edit the last two in the same amount of time that we had to write the first one. Not to mention the difficulty of finding more sources that go with the topic as well as the sources being speicifc types. I think that we should have a few short papers that cover different topics and cover a few different writing styles then having one big paper.
I like the progression of the writing process. It is a way of doing things that I never really thought of before. Breaking the paper down into different parts then puting them back together is a different strategy. The problem that comes up with this is that each paper you want to make the key points in. When it comes down to puting the papers together for each final draft, you have to cut out the redundancy as much as possible. What ends up happening is you repeat a lot of facts in the paper so in order to correct this, you must add more information than just the 4 pages each time. I had a hard time coming up with another 4 full pages on the second paper because many of the points were either repeated or related to each other, resulting in the reduction of description sentences to connect each side of the history of the topic. I fear that by the final version at the end of the semester will have a lot of redundancy and in order to compensate for that, I'll have to include a sufficating amount of quotations in order to fill space to meet the page requirements. My struggles were mainly to write enough new information that avoided being redundant. Another problem I have is I still can not seem to grasp the idea of what types of words are passive voice. I know "to be" is but I can't remember all the forms of "to be" and it's hard to make a good sentence sometimes without using a form of "to be".
I like how its one big paper but we gradually build up to it, makes me less stressed that its broken up. But it tends to be redundant and feels like it never ends, and it starts to get boring. Sometimes smaller papers are less stressful and more entertaining / interesting to write because it’s a fresh topic. However, I don’t think I’d learn and experience just how much forms of to be are used in my writing and our language as a whole.
My paper is going well, but I’m having a hard time digging deeper into my topic and it seems like most of the information out there is one sided and you don’t really get to hear a lot about the other side to the argument. Most of the sites that I have found with good information and actual what I believe to be “credible” in anyway have already been used in my paper and I just can’t seem to find another good credible source. I think I might spend sometime this weekend digging on the library’s website finding more credible sources there hopefully. I haven’t spent as much time as I should be using this source of information.
I’m struggling to the extreme with “to be” forms. They are a pain in the bum to get rid of for me. I tend to just sit there and stare at my paper, thinking of how to reword the sentence to make the to be forms to go away, saying the sentence over and over and I still cant seem to find a way to get rid of the nasty buggers. As well as finding more credible sources that I haven’t already used.
One reason I like the assignments right now is the fact we are sticking with our original topics. Although it is the biggest pain for me to revise over and over again this paper, in the end, is going to be one that was worked on for a whole symmester. That is awesome and later on this paper could be referred to, especially if it is in a student’s area of study. The hardest part for me is keeping the amount of pages right. It seems every time I revise my paper I eliminate more and make everything less wordy, but then I have to add more information to keep the page number up. It’s also hard to sort through a ton of sources. There has been a ton of information for my topic especially recent information and it is hard to not get overwhelmed. All in all this paper is a struggle but every time we add something new and peer review everything seems to look a lot better.
A strictly independent writing class is really new for me. Usually I am assigned a paper with a topic or question to answer. I really enjoy picking out my own topic and following it up with research. I think I am a lot more motivated to research my topic if I like the subject. I think another aspect that I enjoy is the idea of splitting up the paper into 4 page chunks each composed of different areas of the topic. I think that if we were just assigned a 16 page paper at the beginning of the class I know I would wait until the late minute. This way I know that I have to get certain parts of the paper done at certain times. I think because my topic is a local as well as recent controversy I sometimes struggle in finding information. I think this paper might have been easier to write in a couple of years. On the other hand I have found that I am living in this controversy, and therefore I have a more personal opinion. Like I said I think the one thing that I am struggling with research on my topic, but I think that I just need to look more at the local articles and newspapers written. I think that the library sources of these articles will really help me.
I think the assigments are appropriate for the class. We aren't doing any busy work, like some classes. I kinda wish the paper wasn't cummlative b/c sometimes i just want to write it and be done with it and not deal with it anymore. But then i think that in the end i'm going to have a really good paper, so it will bo ok. The paper is going ok. I am having trouble finding premeis for the paper but i'm working on it. i think i'm going to have some trouble finding academic sources for my paper. I am going to the library tomorrow in hopes of finding them and finishing my paper in the same day. I am struggling with formatting my argument. I have been reading the book and it is helpful but first i need to fingure out what type of agrument it is to have the book be helpful. It is getting easyer to not use passive voice. There are a few sentecnes that i'm sturggling wih but they are just a few. Overall i really don't think the paper is bad.
I think that I general, the assignments are not getting too hard. Although, it seems as thought it is getting tougher to find information and specific evidence or quotes to back up my premises. For example, as my paper gets more and more specific, I need more and more specific statistics or quotes to back up my arguments. However, this evidence can be hard to find because it is so specific. Also, the idea of finding academic articles is hard to incorporate now that we have already written half of our paper. Because we are so far into the paper, it is harder to go back and add information that is from a scholarly source. It would have been easier to have started looking for scholarly sources from the way beginning of writing the paper. It feels like the hardest thing for me right now is finding scholarly sources on my topic mainly because my topic is more of a popular topic. Because my topic is file sharing, it seems like most of the articles that I find are popular, and when they are scholarly, they tend to be against my topic.
I believe that this assignment is really worthwhile, even if it is tough. I think it will help me in the future for writing convincing papers. To be honest my paper has been hard for me to complete. I am writing about Chronic Wasting Disease and although it is interesting to me it is a hard topic to make others care about. Most people have not heard of the disease or if they have do not care about it. It is a social perception issue, something that is totally based on how people have been raised or their views. I have been having some trouble finding actual facts for my arguments. Information has been my biggest problem. Many of the sources provide the same information about the history of the disease. Since it is a relatively new disease most of the studies that would normally provide statistics to back up my points are not released. Researchers are still working on their studies and most are unwilling to state their opinions since the long term affects of CWD have not been determined. I think if I can find information that writing the actual paper will not be difficult.
Right now I’m really overwhelmed with how many pages we have to turn in on Sunday. It would be ok if this was my only class, but it takes a lot of time management to work everything out. I’m glad that we did the paper in stages though. Right now, my room is just exploding with papers about my topic. My desk is overflowing and I’m sure there are random printouts that fell under my desk. I am really excited to work out the final details of my paper. I have put so much work into it. Just finding enough scholarly articles was really a challenge. I had to really think outside the box to find articles written in scholarly journals about the circus. Not many well known scientists want to write about the circus. I’ll be really happy when I can look at the finished product of my paper, but for now it seems like a huge mess that I’m just going to have to bulldoze my way through.
Right now I’m really overwhelmed with how many pages we have to turn in on Sunday. It would be ok if this was my only class, but it takes a lot of time management to work everything out. I’m glad that we did the paper in stages though. Right now, my room is just exploding with papers about my topic. My desk is overflowing and I’m sure there are random printouts that fell under my desk. I am really excited to work out the final details of my paper. I have put so much work into it. Just finding enough scholarly articles was really a challenge. I had to really think outside the box to find articles written in scholarly journals about the circus. Not many well known scientists want to write about the circus. I’ll be really happy when I can look at the finished product of my paper, but for now it seems like a huge mess that I’m just going to have to bulldoze my way through.
1. “There have been at least five species of humans, all of them evolving in Africa and four of them migrating out in successive waves to Europe and Africa. The human evolutionary tree is a bush rooted in Africa.”
2. “Our species evolved in Africa recently, and spread from there to the rest of the world, eventually replacing earlier human species in Europe and Asia.”
3. “Neanderthals were a separate dead-end species of human rather than our direct ancestors.”
The writer supports the first argument by giving the history of the human race, as seen by many anthropologists. The writer supports the second argument by giving the history of the human race from a different view, and then describes a study and the results of the study done to discover which version of the history is correct. The third argument is supported by the writer explaining that neanderthals DNA and homo sapiens DNA are different.
For one example of pathos, the writer could have explained how we evolved, and how we are connected to the species coming out of Africa. Another example could be a story about a scientist discovering the connection between all the different species and their origins in Africa
This article had many interesting points and several good arguments for his paper. In his paper the author brought forth many ideas that had been fiercely debated by scientists. In his first section the author discussed the theory that our evolutionary path was a “bush” instead of the generally accepted ‘tree” theory. To support this argument he discussed the fact that there were five separate species that developed in Africa. He supported his bush theory by illustrating the fact that these species developed at different times and then migrated, essentially creating evolutionary waves of prehistoric man. Each wave then replaced the succeeding wave. I believe that the author very successfully stated and supported his argument while also refuting the points made by others in the past.
The second argument the author made was relating to the evolution of the species. Some scientists believe that our species developed in three
different continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa; rather than all forming in Africa and spreading outward. To support the point that all species came from Africa he used the findings of a scientific study. The DNA of 42 populations were studied for genetic variations, Populations with the most variations were the oldest since they had the most time for development and variation. In the study 21 of the 24 variations that were found were found in Africa, thus the African populations are the oldest. From this he concluded that the majority of evolutionary advances occurred in Africa.
The final argument that was brought forth was whether or not the modern human was in fact a descendant of the prehistoric Neanderthal. The author sited a study that found huge genetic variations between modern humans and Neanderthals. This variation supported the belief that the two species were actually not directly related; instead Neanderthals were a dead end species.
The author could have used pathos in his article in several places. For example in his introduction, instead of jumping into the debate among scientists he could have appealed to emotions by telling a story. In addition, when the author was discussing the link between modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, he could have given it a more human face rather than just the facts. An example of using pathos for the link between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals could be something like the following. Scientists do not believe that the two species united and thus Neanderthals became part of our genetic line. It seems unlikely that a Neanderthal man would wander far from his cave into the harsh elements in search of a companion. Instead this man would have found prehistoric happiness with the Neanderthal woman living in a cave just down the hill.
In the text Human Evolution: The scientist studying human origins are engaged in lively debate, there are many ways to think about the human evolution. Two scientists sent their views to all of their colleagues about the Neanderthal evolution. Many disagreements arose because of these controversial issues. One issue is that the evolutionary tree becomes a bush, and that bush’s roots come out of Africa. The next controversial issue is that the human specie evolved in Africa recently and spread from there to the rest of the world, eventually replacing earlier human species to Europe and Asia. The final controversial issues indicates that “Neanderthals were a separate specie of humans rather that a direct ancestor.”
The writer supports his arguments by researching the history of human evolution. He also supports his arguments by the theory of early migration out of Africa to Europe and Asia. This theory was the Regional Continuitly Theory. Another support for his argument is the DNA analysis of the bones.
The writer used pathos by trying to make all of us believe that all our ancestors came from Africa and I don’t think he did a very good job on persuading me. He could have mentioned something about not being able to find other evidence in any other country to support his a little more. He also could have mentioned about where we for surely came from and why it is true.
In human evolution, two million years was too short of a time to distinguish gene differences in humans and chimps. This leads to our specie being in Africa for a lot longer because of the genetic mutations. Because of the wide variety of genetics, the background is unclear where we all come from.
1. -There appears to now be 5 distinct species of humans instead of 3.
- Each species of human tends to originate in Africa then spreads out into Asia and Europe later on in fossil records.
- The last migration of Homo sapiens occured recently about 30000 years ago.
- The human evolutionary family tree is actually a bush.
- More genetic variations were found in current African humans and so it is believed that humans have been in Africa longer and therefore migrated out of Africa later on.
- Reports that Homo sapiens interbreeded with Neanderthals has no solid evidence.
- Neanderthals appear to be a dead-end species of humans.
2. This article appears to be supported as if the writer is actually a scientist. He talks of how he taught human evolution 25 years ago to students so we already know he has to be credible. He doesn't appear to use any sources or citation in the article other than what critics have written in emails. He uses his own knowledge of the subject as the only source and explains it in a way that makes sense to the reader.
3. First, I think that a visual family "bush" would have been a great way to support his arguement. Visuals always are a huge help with readers. I think the main reason it would have been good is to give the reader a better understanding of what the "bush" would be rather than the normal evolutionary "tree". Secondly, I wish the author would have used some of their own personal research or findings in his arguments. I think that his opinion is not clearly supported with person experiences or knowledge to the extent that would make this a more convincing article.
4. Through my own research, I have been able to determine that Neanderthals did not interbreed with Homo sapiens due to there genetic differences. Their DNA has too many variations in it that would not allow for them to interbreed, and as other people had argued, created a hybrid of the two species. This hybrid is not a valid finding and is not clearly supported by the scientists who made the argument. To me, there is clearly two different species when comparing Neanderthals to sapiens. Neanderthals were replaced by sapiens, not slowly changed through interbreeding.
In the article “Human Evolution: The scientists study human origins are engaged in lively debate,” has many argument outlined. The arguments are:
Is the human evolutionary tree a bush? Controversy of the history of different species that today’s humans came from
Did our species only evolve in Africa?
Are Neanderthals our cousins, or a separate species?
The author supports these arguments by using the information he has gained by teaching human evolution at the Washington University. He doesn’t have any apparent sources that he has used. He has no sources sited, he uses history and static to make his points but don’t mention where has received it.
The author could have used pathos to grab his audience’s attention or to illustrate his point of view.
An example of a paragraph that would use the pathos for this article would be:
Your ancestors underwent many hardships. They traveled all around continents with a goal of survival. Some species didn’t survive while other thrived. Through millions of years only the strong survive making us who we are today.
There are many arguments that the author makes throughout their writing. The topic that is first discussed is about how many different types of humans there have been in history, and the author says that many paleontoloists agree that there were 5. Next, he discusses the controversy on where human evolution began. The author believes that the study of genes that evolve quickly is the solution to determine whether human evolution began in Africa. The last argument discussed was about whether Neanderthals were direct ancestors of humans or whether they were hybridized with humans. The author says that Neanderthals were not the direct ancestors of humans.
Throughout the article, the author mainly uses history to support his arguments, however, there are not any sources cited. Also, the author mentions statistics and studies that have been done with genes and DNA. Lastly, the author uses studies that have been done with old bones that bones and the comparison to bones of humans of today.
The author did not use any pathos in his writing. If the author wanted to use pathos, there are 2 different ways he could have used them if he wanted to catch his audience in a different way. Some examples are that he could have used a story about when the Neanderthals and the homo sapiens hybridized or when a story about how the homo sapien first saw came to life.
Their eyes met for the first time. Both the Neanderthal Ned and the homo sapien Sue fell in love at first sight. They grunted at each other in satisfaction as they told stories of their past. Next the mating ritual began. Thus was the hybridization of the homo sapien.
Some of the arguments presented in questioning are
- There are 5 stages of human evolution
- Was homo sapiens migration out of Africa and then spread throughout Europe and Asia
- There is no significant evidence to support a connection between the Neanderthals and human. Further can be found in DNA evidence
The writer supports his arguments by providing a popular opinion with evolutionary support to back. Arguments. He provides evidence of resent research as well as conclusions arose from new information. He provides studies of new bone and DNA research as well as the complexity in the stages of evolution. He really gives a sense of uncertainty throughout the article, always questioning the possibility of the unknown. The writer could of used pathos, and emotional interjection to claims of the presented arguments. Pathos could be by supporting the arguments or attracting the audience. An example of this could be Homo habilis were the first species to ever step foot on the rich soil of the earth. They roared on the grounding claiming it as their own and officially beginning the process of evolution.
The article “Human Evolution”, was full of scientific theories, information, and arguments. It starts off showing the two sides scientists believed about evolution. The first argument was “the human evolutionary tree is a bush, rooted in Africa.”. Some paleontologists believed only five distinct species evolved into the homo sapiens we are today and that four of them came from Africa. The author followed the argument with dates, origins, and specific names of the different species.
The second argument basically entails all species of homo sapiens could not have derived just from Africa. This specific theory was called the Regional Continuity Theory. It told the reader how the stream of different populations over the world became homo sapien.
After presenting the two arguments the author goes right into transition saying we can find the truth to this controversy by looking at genetic variations from each group of humans. He goes through the scientific study to prove that the oldest population of humans show genetic defects so African populations were around a lot longer than Asian or American.
I could not find many examples of pathos in this article. The author seemed much more scientific than emotionally connected to the reader. If I could add some pathos into this article I would incorporate the reader by mentioning family lineages. I would get the discussion of knowing our own ancestries and how far back people can go. Maybe the author could find research on the largest family tree known. I think bringing a family tree into the article could make the reader get emotionally connected because where they personally come from is being addressed.
The arguments for this article are how did humans evolve and what theory is right. There are many different views on how the human race evolved and if we evolved only in Africa and what scientist is right.
The writer supports his arguments by giving information and facts that have been found by scientists all over the world. Also, the scientists have been doing research for many years on this subject and are very informed but they do not agree on who is right. Both sides have made arguments and have facts to support their arguments but neither one sorts its self as the right one.
This article is a very scientific article and uses many scientific words that to a regular person may not understand. One way to help them understand may be to put a story about why they feel it is so important that we find out where humans evolve from so that the regular person feels some connection. Also, then the reader will want to read on because they will feel personally connected. Another thing the writer could add to this article is a little story about how this research has changed their life. This way we may be able to connect our life to the research and feel some emotion from the article.
It wasn’t until I started researching the evolution of humans that I realized how important life really was. As I was researching I found many bodies and in many parts of the world and how they looked as I discovered them. As I discovered them I realized that someday I too may be dug up to be looked at to see different aspects of human life. It also made me realize that I will not live forever and that I should be happy for my time that I have on earth.
Is human evolution tree a bush?
Did our species evolve only in Africa?
Are Neanderthals our cousins, or a separate species?
The writer supports his arguments by introducing the topic, supporting it with a fact and then explaining what he meant by including the fact and what it means in simpler detail. He/she uses facts, information, events, history that pertain to the topic, and agree to his argument to support his case. He/she interprets the data they stated to make it worthwhile in their paper.
Two examples of how the author could add pathos into his/her writing are: tell a story about how mutations have evolved humans over time; what’s bad or good about evolution? He could have explained how many people do not understand where they have come from and the evolution our species has gone threw. He also could have pertained to more of how evolution affects humans not just physically but emotionally. How do gene mutations affect us?
Humans have evolved in the past 2 million years, a time frame which is too short to introduce gene mutations/gene differences to our species. But do we really know how this affects our species? Just look at the wide variety of chimpanzees, who have been around for some time now, can you tell the gene differences? They have more of a variety within their species due to gene differences.
The major arguments in this piece are: there have been at least five species of humans not just three, humans evolved in Africa and spread to the rest of the world from there, and Neanderthals are a separate dead-end species not our direct ancestors. The author in this piece uses a lot of scientific evidence to support his claims. While there is no direct scientific evidence to link directly to his conclusions, he uses the evidence to support his ideas. His interpretations of the data, lead to the belief of the three main arguments above.
I think this author could use pathos to create a certain appeal to his beliefs. Right now, after I just read the piece, I really did not care one way or another. I did not have any emotion towards one answer. The author should make the reader want to believe that we evolved from ancestors in Africa. He should give us a reason to want to be connected to African relatives, while at the same time not connected to Neanderthals. Accomplishing these two goals would support two of his arguments very well.
An example of doing this would be to give the positive beliefs of being closely related to Africans. He could tell a story of how much stronger Africans were and still are and that is why they were able to overcome the earlier human species in Europe and Asia. Maybe there could be one powerful leader who led his strong people to Europe and Asia and created the mighty, powerful race that we are today. This would really make me want to believe that I am a close ancestor to people from Africa. Who wouldn’t want to be part of a big, strong powerful race, as opposed to the weak race that was probably wiped out in early Europe and Asia. In contrast, the Neanderthals would potentially be described also as weak and unworthy of being out ancestors. Describing people like this would make me proud to be a descendant of the Africans. I would be almost emotionally attached to them.
Is human evolution a tree or a bush?
Did our species evolve only in Africa?
Are Neanderthals our cousins or a separate species.
The writer supports his arguments by using facts, info, and specific events relating to the argument that he is trying to get across. He also briefly tells you about the history of what he is trying to explain and then he integrates the information he wants you to know with in that.
Two ways he could have used more PATHOS would be: One he could have tugged at you by saying do you know where you came from who you really are. Second he could make it appeal to more readers by to a more general audience. He could then appeal to everyone and make people feel like they are connected to these lost beings.
Today humans are sophisticated, inventive, bold and beautiful, we work, and play and nothing is ever questioned. But where do we really come from? Who are we related to? Is it possible that we are closer then we think to that annoying person next door? Looking back at time yes that is a possibility. Humans have evolved from 4 previous species. We have grown into superior beings. But if you look at our DNA we all may have different DNA but yet one gene sequence in all of us is related.
1. There were several arguments made in this article. One argument is if all humans originated in Africa, or if they originated from a bunch of different places. Another one is if there were any related ‘human-like’ animals that we may have evolved from. The last argument presented is if the Neanderthals are related to us, or if there were a separate species.
2. This writer supports his arguments by using information throughout history. Another example that he uses, which can’t really be refuted, is DNA. By using this to support his argument, the writer can make an informative paper.
3. There is no pathos in this paper. The writer could of put pathos in to the paper to invoke more emotion. The writer could of used stories of humans interacting with the Neanderthals. The writer could have also said that the other scientists felt about his article.
4. Thirty thousand years ago, the Neanderthals and humans co-existed. Although no proven mating happened, they must of interacted. They could of taught thing to each other, which may be why humans and Neanderthals were once thought of as cousins, although their DNA is completely different.
The author of this article is debating the ‘Out of Africa’ theory. That is, whether Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals that had already left Africa, or if the Homo Sapien evolved in Africa and then branched off into Europe and Asia, evolving into different races due to traits favorable in their environment. The author holds the opinion that the ‘Out of Africa’ theory is correct because of DNA testing showing that humans are not quite closely related enough to be a cousin of the Neanderthal, and that fossil studies show that the Neanderthal does not mix traits with Homo Sapiens, so interbreeding is unlikely.
This author did not use pathos in the article. They could have made it more emotional by bringing it to more of a personal level with the reader and the scientists involved. If we understood their passion and dedication to the theories and subjects being discussed and why they feel the way they do, we could get more of an opinion from shared human emotion in addition to solid scientific data.
For example: Dr. A is a scientist who went to the most prestigious universities and dedicated her life to the study of anthropology. She is appaled and feels her long and hard work in school is nearly being discredited by the claims and theories of this idea that states Homo Sapiens move out of Africa was recent.
Go to http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/humanevolution.html
1. Outline the arguments in the URL cited above (use premises to pick apart or just list)
2. How does this writer support his/her arguments?
3. Give me two examples of how the writer could have used pathos.
4. After reading, write an example pgh. or using pathos.
To connect my informative paper to my convincing paper, i will need to
connect the history of my argument to the actual argument. I will introduce
the argument an then give the history of the argument before I actually
argue for it and show that I support it. If it is an argument for the other
side, I would introduce the argument and give its history, and then explain
whu its not a good argument and should not be used.
2. This is what my Racial Privacy Initiative, which I am proposing for the
ballot a year from November, is all about. It is time to stop the
government from classifying individuals -- or demanding that individuals
classify themselves -- on the basis of skin color, facial features, hair
texture, national ancestry or ethnic background. Not only is it socially
abhorrent and politically divisive, it has become irrelevant.
3. This transition helps the paper change topics. It starts with a paragraph talking about how people in california need to give information about their racial background when applying to things such as a job. The paragraph after this transition talks about what the initiative will try to do. This paragraph helps transition by wxplaining that you shouldn't have to supply info on your racial background and it also introduces the initiative.
4. There are no problems. This Paragraph is perfect in every way, just like me.
I think that the history section provides the bases for a further extension of ones arguments. The history section should just gradually flow into a presentation or should just come naturally as ones paper extends into further depth. The connection between the two should be evident because the history is what is providing the grounds for arguments to be formed. My transitional paragraph came from the St. Paul pioneer Press title Photo exhibit tells story of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and written by
Deborah Locke.
For two years, starting in spring 2001, Banerjee traveled 4,000 miles by snowmobile, kayak, raft and on foot over an undocumented and unforgiving land. He waited in snow blinds for weeks on end to see if a polar bear would emerge from a den. With native Alaskan Robert Thompson as his guide, Banerjee captured images large and small, detailed and broad, richly colored and stark in their simplicity. My favorite, "Unnamed Lake," shows a cloudy sky reflected in a still lake flanked by pine trees, marshland and mountains. A photo striking for its color shows muskox at sundown, a photo Banerjee took from ground level as an ice fog rolled in. In another picture, a yellowed polar bear moves toward whalebones. http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/9920357.htm?1c
This transitional paragraph is used first off to describe the art and photography of Banerjee, this directly correlating to a new opening of the artists work at the Science Museum downtown. The Paragraph travels through the journey of the artist, concluding with an argument that the work of Banerjee should be very much credited. The paragraph starts off with the history and making of the art and then provided and opinion for this art. These use this paragraph to transition from the history to a personal opinion. The problem in this article is that it doesn’t really provide any basis behind the “greatness” of the photos. It is just a case of they liked it. It would be a more persuasive article the author when into further detail of the reasons that the photos where so striking.
Having all the history in our papers can definitely help to convince or persuade later. History adds the strait facts in the paper, which gives credibility to the writer, which will appeal more to the reader. I think it is going to be somewhat hard to merge the history and convincing all together. To really convince though, I believe the writer has to include history of the subject to familiarize the reader with the whole background of the subject.
http://www.unreasonableman.net/2004/02/cloning.html
“Late last year, around 60 national academies of science from around the world called for a global ban on reproductive cloning, but said researchers should be free to experiment, as the Korean team did, with therapeutic cloning.”
“Researchers say there are many reasons why South Koreans -- and not Americans -- were standing at the podium Thursday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Seattle, not the least of which is the support of the federal government.”
This transitionary paragraph gives recent legal type history of therapeutic cloning and then adds a viewpoint on why history played out the way it did. It also made a conclusion from the history of Americans and Koreans to what is currently happening in both places today and why they are the way they are (government support).
I liked how the writer tied in the history to the controversial side he was arguing. I wish it was structured a little better or flowed better between the two paragraphs. I did not feel like there was enough history behind the author’s argument of government support in this case.