Considering Types

In this post I will reflect on the information provided in the "Five Basic Types of Public Argument" portion of Writing Public Lives, in order to decide which types of argument seem like the best and worst ones for my own Public Argument project.

sweetenough, "I can't get no... contradiction." 10/22/2010 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

I feel like the type of argument that will be the most effective for my public argument is the refutation argument. In my opinion, the best way to show the many benefits of legalization to my audience, whether or not they were supporters of lifting the ban on cannabis prior to seeing my argument, is to disprove the claims that are currently being made against legalizing marijuana in America.

I feel that any of the other types of arguments mentioned in Writing Public Lives, like the proposal argument, would be ineffective for my topic, due to the fact that people could still be resistant to the idea of legalization based on their own preconceived ideas, no matter how convincing my newly proposed ideas or solutions regarding legalization are. Thus, by directly discrediting the claims of opposers of legalization and painting marijuana in a new light, by employing a refutation argument, I will improve the potential for my audience to be more accepting of the idea of lifting the ban on marijuana.

Reflection:
I commented on both Lauren's and Annelise's "Considering Types" posts, but my comments also related to what my peers said within their "My Rhetorical Action Plan" posts. Here are the links to my peers blog posts.

Lauren:
My Rhetorical Action Plan
Considering Types

Annelise:
My Rhetorical Action Plan
Considering Types

After reading Lauren's and Annelise's posts I am still confident in the argument type that I have chosen for my form of public speech. After exploring my peers' plans for this project it became apparent to me how greatly argument types, possible genres, and target audiences can change drastically depending on the topic that an author is addressing. Thus, even though my peers and myself all decided on different argument types that is okay based on the fact that we are all discussing different controversies and have different goals in mind for our audiences. One very interesting thing that I discovered during this reflection process was the great potential of success for the genre of a listicle. I feel like a listicle, based on Annelise's explanation, could be a very good genre for me to compose my argument within, because it will enable me to explicitly address the 5 or so major illogical arguments that people make against legalization. Thus, I will have to strongly consider making a listicle in addition to my other proposed genre types before making a final decision on how I will construct my argument.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this post I will answer the the three questions and their sub-bullets from the "Developing a Rhetorical Action Plan" portion within Writing Public Lives, in order to figure our the most effective way to make my argument in Project 3.

Robinson, Teresa, "Right Brain Planning {elements}." 6/21/2008 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

1. Audience: Who are you going to try to persuade with your public argument? Describe the following aspects of your audience in a few sentences:

I am trying to reach young adults within the ages of 18 to 35 as the main audience of my public argument. I feel that this target audience will be the most effectively persuaded into believing that legalization is a good idea for America.

• Knowledge: What does the audience know about the topic, text, or idea? How do they know the topic (where do they get their knowledge from)? Do they have certain predispositions or opinions about the topic that you will need to address?

I would assume that the ideal audience for my argument will have a decent amount of knowledge on the topic of legalization, due to the fact that the issue of legalization has been under debate for quite a few years. Thus, my readers could have gained their knowledge about legalization from speeches by politicians, news reports, articles, or just conversations among their peers and elders regarding marijuana legalization. A lot of the time the topic of legalization is presented from a negative viewpoint, thus my readers could potentially have biased opinions about the downsides of legalization, however I plan on directly addressing and disproving a lot of the preconceived notions about marijuana that my readers may have been exposed to including the fact that marijuana is more addictive than alcohol and tobacco, and that if cannabis were to be legalized it would have more negative health effects on Americans.

• Values: What do you know about the values, ideals, principles or norms (standards of conduct) that members of the audience might hold?

Due to the fact that younger individuals tend to be more willing to accept change than Americans who are older than my target age range, it would make sense for my audience to have liberal beliefs. However, some of my audience members may have conservative ideals regarding marijuana legalization, but I feel that my argument, which will go into detail about how most of the thoughts and beliefs that Americans tend to have about marijuana legalization being harmful and immoral are unjust, will effectively make enable my audience to see the benefits of legalization, despite their prior feelings about the issue.

• Standards of Argument: What type of research or evidence do you think will be persuasive for your audience? How might you have to translate this research for them?

I feel like including scientific facts about how marijuana has been proven to be less harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, in addition to including support about how legalization will help America's economy, and by mentioning the reasons how marijuana prohibition came about would really help to persuade my audience. I will directly quote articles with this information and provide links for further reading regarding this support to my argument.

• Visual elements: What visual elements might your audience respond to? Why?

I think that providing my audience with visual representations of graphs and other statistical findings would be really helpful in making my audience see legalization in a better light. For instance if I include a screenshot of a chart that I found online about the major reasons why Americans are against legalization which includes the percentage of Americans that share those beliefs, and discuss how a majority of those justifications that people give for keeping the ban on marijuana in effect are based off of incorrect reasoning. Therefore, an image of this nature will allow my audience to further understand the validity of my overall argument.

• Purpose: Why is your audience reading or listening to your argument? Are you trying to expand their understanding of an idea, encourage them to take action on an issue, challenge a long-held tradition or viewpoint, etc.? How likely is your argument to motivate your audience?

They want to know what to be more informed about the issue of marijuana legalization and the reasons why the ban on cannabis should ultimately be put to a stop. I want to challenge the highly regarded conservative values that many Americans have about marijuana, by providing my audience with new knowledge on the topic or by presenting it in a new way, which would, or at least I hope, consequently inspire them to take action regarding legalization. This desire for action could encompass simply reading more about the issue, or educating people who they come across who express the beliefs that my public speech disproves, or going out and participating in protests, or having a voice and voting on legalization when given the chance, either on a state or national level.

2. Genre #1: What form of writing will you use? After identifying your genre, list your answers for the following questions:

I think that writing an editorial for my public argument (like ones found here and here). 

• What is the function of the genre? What is it designed to do for your readers? Or, why did you choose it?

The function of an editorial is to share an author's opinion about a specific controversial issue. Written works within this genre are intended to inform their readers about the topic at hand. I chose to look further into this genre because I feel like being able to express my own thoughts and opinions about legalization, but still being able to teach my readers about legalization with facts from varying sources will allow them to formulate their own conclusions regarding the issue.   

• What is the setting of your genre? Where could you see it being used? 

There are a lot of settings for this genre. However I could really seeing an editorial of this nature to be posted on The New York Times or The Huffington Post, because these would be good publications for my intended audience to learn about the issue of legalization.

• How might you use the rhetorical appeals we have studied--ethos (character), pathos (values/emotion), and logos (logical argumentation) in this genre?

I intend on appealing to my audience's logos by providing support to prove how most of the justifications that people have for being opposed to legalization are illogical, based on facts that I have found while doing research. Also, I could appeal to my audience's ethos by possibly providing a small personal narrative to illustrate to my audience that I am a part of the age group that is of great importance regarding the issue of legalization. 

• What type of visual elements, if any, will you use in this genre? 

I will probably have a picture at the beginning of my editorial to graph my readers' attention and then I will most likely have images or graphs placed throughout my editorial to further support my claims and reasoning.

• What type of style (formal, informal, conversational, academic, etc.) will you use in this genre?

In editorials, authors tend to use a conversational and rather informal tone. This helps to make an author seem more relatable to their audience, thus I plan on following this convention.

Genre #2: What form of writing will you use? After identifying your genre, list your answers for the following questions:

I am also considering making an informational video pertaining to the reasons legalization should be put into effect (see here and here). 

• What is the function of the genre? What is it designed to do for your readers? Or, why did you choose it?

The function of this genre would be to present all of the same support that I would include within an editorial, however an informational video would allow my audience to see my reasoning in support of legalization in a visual way with effective music selection, in order to make the audience more emotionally invested in the topic.  

• What is the setting of your genre? Where could you see it being used? 

The work made within this genre could be first made on youtube and then shared and published on a site like Reddit, which is commonly viewed by my intended audience.

• How might you use the rhetorical appeals we have studied--ethos (character), pathos (values/emotion), and logos (logical argumentation) in this genre?

I would appeal to my audience's logos by providing them with a lot of facts including ones about how marijuana has been proven to be less addictive than a lot of other drugs and numbers and figures about how America's economy will benefit from legalization. Also, I will appeal to my viewers' pathos by using powerful images and influential and intriguing music.

• What type of visual elements, if any, will you use in this genre? 

The whole video would be constructed of a variety of images and video clips. These could range from ones about protests that are occurring surrounding legalization, segments from public speeches regarding marijuana, or graphical evidence about studies done about marijuana's health benefits and lack of addicting qualities.

• What type of style (formal, informal, conversational, academic, etc.) will you use in this genre?

The style of this genre is informative and conversational, much like an editorial. The facts are presented in a casual fashion so that viewers can see their relevance and importance, without being overwhelmed feeling overwhelmed by an overly aggressive presentation of facts.

3. Responses/actions: Explain the possible actions that you would like your audience to take after they read or view your argument. 

Positive reactions:

• agreeing that marijuana should be legal in the U.S.
• acknowledging that the idea of prohibition is outdated and ineffective
• recognizing that the major reasons opposing legalization are illogical or decided upon based on incorrect facts
• feeling informed enough on the issue to stand up for legalization if someone is using faulty logic to justify keeping the marijuana ban in effect

Negative Rebuttals:

• Legalization will only benefit people who want to use marijuana regularly
• Marijuana is a gateway drug and if it is legalized Americans would be more willing to try other drugs
• The prohibition of marijuana must have been started for a good reason, thus it should stay in effect

Possible Response to Negative Rebuttals:

• Illustrate how legalization will benefit many sectors of the economy, which will consequently benefit a lot of people
• Provide facts about how some people who try marijuana do tend to experiment with other drugs, but there is no proof that marijuana is the cause of that experimentation
• Explain how in early America marijuana production was required to help the economy and helping to make other goods. Then go into detail how prohibition only came about during the Great Depression to further a flourishing anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment, and to make sure people didn't turn on the government, these facts would show how the ban on marijuana was put in place for reasons that would not benefit U.S. citizens.

Analyzing Purpose

In this post, I will answer that questions from the "Thinking through the Purpose of Your Public Argument" portion within Writing Public Lives, in order to further analyze my purpose of composing Project 3.

ashley rose, "72.365 purpose for the pain & world suicide prevention day." 9/10/2009 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

1. What is the goal of your argument? What do you want your audience to think, feel, do, believe after reading it?
The goal of my arguments is for people to see the reasons why marijuana legalization is logical and necessary in America. I want my audience to feel enlightened about the benefits of ending the ban on cannabis, and be inspired to do further research on legalization. My desire is for my audience to no longer blindly believe the misconceptions, if they are already doing so, about legalization. I also want my audience to realize that the issue of legalization involves more than just a moral aspect, because making the decision to end the prohibition of cannabis encompasses logical and economical beliefs as well.

2. Plausible Actions/ Reactions:
-Audience will want to read more about the benefits of legalization
-Audience will want to look deeper into anti-legalization texts
-They will be more interested in forming their opinion on the debate
-People will become more emotionally invested in the issue over legalization

Not Plausible:
-Audience becomes offended by my argument
-Audience feels that none of the info within my argument is new or relevant to them

3. Possible Consequences:
-People will be more aware and knowledgable when encountering debates about marijuana
-They will be more willing to vote directly on marijuana legislation, if given the opportunity in the future/ will consider marijuana views more when voting for elected officials
-Audience will be more openminded regarding legalization
-People will see the outdated and incorrect ideas that marijuana opposition is based off of
-Individuals will have an opinion in the debate, rather than just allowing the people with extreme viewpoints to constantly be the leaders in the discussion of the issue
-Audience may be more willing to take action (sign a petition, take part in a protest) after reading my text

4. The most ideal audience for my argument would have to be young American adults, who are most likely between the ages of 18 to 35. This age range will be helpful because people of these ages are not set in their ways and tend to be more willing to accept change than older individuals. Thus, after reading my argument my target audience will hopefully feel more educated and more confident to speak out and share their new found knowledge about cannabis legalization when confronted with the overly conservative thoughts of their elders, some of which I intend to disprove in my argument. Marijuana legalization will affect the America that we, the people of my target audience will have to be a part of in the future, thus we must be wiling and able to be an active part of this debate.

Analyzing Context

In this post I will analyze the context of my controversy for Project 3 by answering the questions within "Reading Context of Your Public Debate" from Writing Public Lives. 

Chrismatos ♥90% OFF, sorry, "Fog." 7/8/2010 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

There are simply two key perspectives regarding the debate surrounding marijuana: pro-legalization and anti-legalization.

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?
There is a lot of disagreement surrounding the economic and health benefits of marijuana between the two sides of this issue. Also, there is a lot of dispute over whether or not marijuana is less or more dangerous and addictive than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

3. What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?
The only real common ground between the two perspectives surrounding legalization is that both sides are attempting to ensure the overall safety and prosperity of America and its citizens.

4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?
In general, supporters of legalization tend to be more liberal, while individuals who oppose legalization tend to be more conservative.

5. What specific actions to their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?
The main goal of texts written from either perspectives is to inform their audience to about marijuana so that they would vote, if given the opportunity on either a state or national level, for or against marijuana, depending on the viewpoint of a particular text's author.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?
The perspective that I feel will be most helpful in supporting my own argument, which is in favor of legalizing marijuana, will be those from the anti-marijuana side of this debate. For instance, the opposing thoughts and opinions of concerned parents, conservative individuals, and hesitant elderly Americans on marijuana will be useful for providing me with a clear basis of the claims that I will need to disprove, using factual and convincing evidence from the pro-legalization side of this debate, in order for more Americans to see the benefits of legalization.

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?
The same anti-weed perspectives that I claimed would be be helpful in supporting my arguments about the issue could also be my greatest threats. If the earlier mentioned concerned parents, conservative individuals, and hesitant elderly Americans or people who see validity in that perspective's claims remain strongly resistant to legalization in every aspect of the debate surrounding marijuana, even after reading my argument, then I have ultimately failed at achieving my purpose.

Reflection:
I read and commented on the "Analyzing Context" posts by Ann Emilie and Breanna. Both of my peers performed really good analysis of the context of their controversial topics. One thing that Breanna's post taught me was that the perspectives of a debate do not have to be so black and white. Therefore, I could possibly incorporate a hybrid perspective in my argument to further appeal to my audience and express my ideas.

Audience and Genre

In this post I will be exploring a few audiences that I could ultimately make me for of public speech pertain to. I will also be looking into the genre of writing that would effectively appeal to these people.

J J, "Captive Audience." 11/23/2009 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommerical-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

1. College students who are willing to have explore the current pros and cons of legalizing marijuana in America- This is a worthwhile audience to appeal to about this issue of marijuana because I am around the same age as these people so I feel like I could relate to them and their thought processes. Also, since marijuana legalization is an issue that will continue to have importance throughout this audience's adulthood it would be beneficial to inform them on this issue.

• A youtube video that could be shared on social media that discusses the current facts about marijuana enforcement and sway my peers to have a say in this debate. Example, Example
• Op-ed in a college newspaper that discusses the ways in which marijuana can help college students realize that legalizing marijuana could really benefit out country. Example, Example

2. Grown women, around their 40s and early 50s, who tend to be very open about their views on controversial issues, like that religious aunt who uses Facebook to share videos about how marijuana is evil and negatively affects the mental state of the youth. These women, when presented with the right facts about marijuana might be willing to change their opinions on marijuana legalization if my argument is conveyed in an effective way that shows that typical preconceived notions about cannabis are faulty.

• A Question and answer article pertaining to basic misconceptions about marijuana written for a site like High Times or Leafly that could be shared on social media. Example, Example
• A review on an article or public speech that only discusses the cons of legalizing marijuana, which would allow me to disprove the arguments that marijuana resistant adults tend to side with. Example, Example

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In this post I will provide a link to the first portion of my annotated bibliography for Project 3. The sources within were aimed at answering the questions about my topic within my previous post.

Kleon, Austin, "Mind-map of Edward Tufte's Beautiful Evidence." 12/13/2006 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic 

 To access my annotated bibliography click here.

Narrowing My Focus

In this blog post I will choose 3 questions from my previous post and explain why I feel as though answering to these questions will be crucial to my own public argument.

myneur, Indric, "Upper Anteloupe Canyon." 6/21/2015 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

• When was marijuana made illegal in America?

• How does marijuana compare to legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol?

• Where is marijuana largely used in the world, whether it is legal or not? What laws do these locations have in place?

I think that answering these specific questions will be helpful in starting and developing my argument for Project 3. I feel that looking back in history and seeing when and the claimed reasons why marijuana was made illegal in America could be helpful in presenting the viewpoint that it is time for the ban to be lifted. Looking into the differing qualities of cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco, such as the health repercussions and the addiction rates for each substance could be helpful possibly be helpful to my argument. Lastly, by researching where marijuana is largely used in the world would be beneficial to researching the issue of what America should do about marijuana. In places where weed is illegal it will be interesting to see what laws they have in place and how strict they are. Whereas in places that have totally legalized weed, it would be interesting to know how that is working out legally and economically. 

Questions About Controversy

In this post I will provide a variety of questions that will help me answer any remaining questions I have about the controversy surrounding marijuana legalization in America, in order to improve my ability to successfully complete Project 3.

Lofton, Ethan, "Questioned Proposal." 5/28/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

WHO

1. What groups of people are the major supporters/ opposers of marijuana legalization in America?
2. Which politicians have expressed their strong opinions regarding legalization and what are their major justifications advocating or opposing legalization?
3. What reasons do people present about marijuana legalization negatively affecting the youth in America?

WHAT 

1. What are the moral justifications that people have in resistance to marijuana legalization?
2. What are the proposed medical downfalls/ benefits of legalizing marijuana?
3. What aspects of the America's economy would be influenced, both positively and negatively, if marijuana were to be legalized? 

WHEN

1. When was marijuana made illegal in America?
2. When did the countries that have legalized marijuana make it legal? Or was it always legal in these locations?
3. When states like Colorado and Washington officially legalized recreational use of marijuana how long did it take for government entities, such as schools, to experience the economic benefits of legalization?

WHERE

1. Where is marijuana legal in the world?
2. Where can the money that the government is currently being spending on marijuana prohibition be used if legalization were to occur?
3. What states are arresting/ incarcerating the most people on marijuana based charges and how much money are they spending to enforce these legal actions? 

HOW

1. How are people responding, on social media, to the discussion of marijuana legalization that is occurring within the current presidential debates?
2. How does marijuana compare to legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol?
3. How do authors of general media sources address marijuana legalization? From an economic, moral, medical or other approaches?

Reflection on Project 2

In this blog post I will reflect on Project 2 by answering the provided questions from Writing Public Lives page 520.

jeff_golden, "Trippy Spoon." 5/19/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

•  What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

The major changes between my first draft and the drafts that followed were within my introduction and conclusion. After discussing introductions in class, I altered my intro to include a grabber and to explicitly forecast the purpose of my writing, which shows my audience why they should want to continue reading my essay. My conclusion was also changed dramatically. After my first draft, I realized I needed to stop summarizing and repeating earlier stated ideas and actually give my concluding paragraph a purpose. I did this by briefly restating my thesis and then focusing the rest of the paragraph on answering the "so what" of my paper.

• Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

The main problem that the first draft of my thesis was that it didn't contain an argument. I definitely portrayed how I intended to deconstruct my chosen text and what strategies my author used, however I never stated my opinion of whether or not the strategies used within the text benefitted the author's overall argument.

• What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

This change to my thesis was crucial to successfully performing an rhetorical analysis as a whole, because an argument in one's thesis, not supporting or refuting the author's opinion but the way that his or her argument is constructed, is an extremely necessary part of creating a rhetorical analysis. The overall purpose of a rhetorical analysis is to make an arguments about the text as a whole, rather than just summarizing the strategies that the author employs.

• How did the changes affect your credibility as an author?

After making this change to my thesis my credibility as an author was definitely improved. The addition of my opinion about the effectiveness of the author's argument, whether my readers agree or not, shows that I am willing to assert my thoughts, even though people may disagree. When an author does not assert an opinion in his or her thesis and appears to stay on the fence about the effectiveness of the text's argument, it makes it seem like that writer lacks confidence in their thoughts and views, which would therefore make readers skeptical of whether or not that essay can be trusted. 

• How will the changes better address the audience of venue?

In addition to properly fulfilling the purpose of writing a rhetorical analysis, I also made this change out of consideration for my audience. My readers, fellow business students, need to be aware of how a correct thesis is composed for a rhetorical analysis, so that they can be able to successfully create their own thesis and argumentative analysis in the future. 

• Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

In my many drafts I reconsidered my sentence structure in regards to the complexity of my sentences. I made a conscious effort to simplify my sentence structure. I also tried to achieve an assertive, but still believable style in my writing.

• How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

These changes will assist my audience my audience a lot in understanding my purpose. Having simpler sentences and a powerful but not too aggressive tone will show my audience that in a rhetorical analysis an author must be direct about his or her opinions, but must also not seem biased or overly opinionated about the stance that the original text took on the issue. Improving these aspects of my writing helped to clear up any ambiguity that my readers would have initially sensed in the purpose of my essay.

• Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

I have never really performed a rhetorical analysis of this kind before. Thus, rather than reconsidering the conventions of this genre while writing my own essay, I just had to remind myself of the correct ways to go about creating a rhetorical analysis that were clearly stated during class and in the readings that I had to do for the many deadlines within this project.

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

This reflection process has definitely made me reconsider the way that I identify myself as a writer. At the beginning of the semester, I considered myself to be a writer who focused primarily on planning and not so much on revision. However, I now realize that the revision process is just as important to the success of a piece of writing that I produce, than the planning portion of my approach to writing. I used to underestimate the importance of revision, because I was never really forced to look over and re-work my essays as I am required to do now. But I am now able to see that although performing good revision can be tough and time consuming, it is indeed a worthwhile task in the long run.

Reflection:

I could really relate a lot to the "Reflection on Project 2" posts by Addie and Sam. We all felt that including a true argument in our theses and clearly stating whether or not out authors effectively used rhetorical strategies within their writing was crucial, in order to properly fulfill the needs of a rhetorical analysis. Sam specifically mentioned how this project/ reflection made him realize that he can identify himself as a writer who is willing to throw out large portions of his writing. This part of his reflection really appealed to me because it reminded me of how hesitant and annoyed I was by the idea of totally getting rid of my intro and conclusion, earlier in this module. However, I now see that re-doing these paragraphs, despite my initial resistance, was really effective in the long run. 

Project 2 Final Draft

This blog post will contain a link that takes readers to my final draft of my rhetorical analysis.

tanakawho, "Finish." 9/23/2011via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

It is finally done!! Click here to access my final version of Project 2!

Punctuation, Part 2

In this post I will discuss three more topics from the "Punctuation" portion of Rules for Writers that i find to be informative, and explain how they helped me improve my rhetorical analysis.

McPhee, Nic, "I tend to scribble a lot." 1/26/2008 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

1. The Apostrophe

• Most of the content of this section was a review for me, however I still learned/ was reminded of some crucial rules pertaining to apostrophe usage. For instance when things have joint possession of something the ('s) only follows the last noun, however if the nouns of the sentence have individual possession then both of the nouns have to be followed by ('s). I also learned that one should not use apostrophes when making numbers or letters plural, which is a mistake that I have definitely made in the past. 
• Reviewing this portion of "Punctuation" was helpful because it made me attentive of my apostrophe usage in my writing. For instance, after going back and looking at my essay I discovered that I mistakenly said: "In addition to using powerful statistics, Smith uses subtle humor in her writing to appeal to her audiences’ belief of fairness." Before reading this section on the apostrophe, I knew that my usage of the apostrophe in this sentence was wrong, but by reviewing my essay for specific apostrophe usage errors I was able to fix this mistake and change the word to "audience's".

2. End Punctuation

• I already knew a lot of the information  within this section of "Punctuation" regarding the correct use of periods, exclamation points, and question marks. However, the inclusion of the fact that one should not put periods between US Postal Service abbreviations, such as NJ, AZ, or CA, was something that was somewhat new to me. Also, I was always unsure if I should include an additional period in a sentence that ends with an abbreviation ending in a period, but now I am confident that the additional period is not necessary.

3. Other Punctuation Marks

• The knowledge that I gained from this part of the book, didn't really come from the ellipsis, slash, or parenthesis parts of this section, because I already was aware of most of the rules surrounding these punctuation marks. However, I definitely did learn valuable information about the usage of brackets and dashes. I knew that I could use brackets to point out words that I added to a quotation, but I was unaware of the fact that I could use "[sic]" to point out an error in the original sentence that I am quoting. In regards to the dash, I didn't really know the right time to appropriately use a dash at any point in my writing. But now I know that dashes can be used to emphasize a part of a sentence, introduce a list, or signal a shift in tone or thought.
• In my writing, before reading this portion of "Punctuation" I said, "Smith informs her readers that ending the prohibition of cannabis will enable American transportation, packaging, retail, processing, and tourism industries to thrive." However, after performing this reading I was able to change this sentence by including dashes, and it now states, "Smith informs her readers that ending the prohibition of cannabis will enable American industries--transportation, packaging, retail, processing, and tourism-- to thrive." This revision simplifies the sentence and adds more attention to the list of industries, or at least this is the effect that I hope it has.

Copy of Paragraph 2 Analysis

In this, post I will provide a link to a new copy of Project 2, which I have performed a paragraph analysis on.

Feggy Art, "Natural Magnifying Lens." 10/4/2010 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Click here to access my paragraph analysis.

Reflection:

After performing a paragraph analysis on my most recent version of my rhetorical analysis draft, I have become a lot more confident in my essay as a whole. I feel as though my body paragraphs are definitely my strong suits. I feel as though my analysis of the text is organized in an effective manner and properly explains the rhetorical strategies that I chose to evaluate. However, despite the fact that this deadline forced me to rework and rewrite both my introduction and conclusion, I am still not totally confident in these aspects of my writing. My introduction makes me concerned because I don't know if my grabber is effective enough, and I am unsure if my conclusion properly circles back to my introduction and answers the right "so what" questions. Other than those concerns, I am quite content with my draft and am excited for the submission process next week.

Revised Conclusion

In this post, I will include my new and improved conclusion and explain some of the ways that I changed it from the original.

Wacker, Michael, "No way out!" 1/19/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

The main difference between my original and my new and improved conclusion is my attempt at circling back to my intro in my new conclusion. My first draft of my conclusion, answered the "so what" question in great detail, and since I feel like this is crucial for a good concluding paragraph, I included this aspect into my conclusion again, but in a different way. Totally getting rid of the "so what" approach to my conclusion would add and undue amount of work because I would have to reincorporate this aspect of my conclusion into my final draft either way.

Original Conclusion:

Based on all of the analysis above, it is evident that in the article “How legalizing pot could save America’s economy” S.E. Smith employs shocking statistics, historical data, and humor, in order to appeal to popular American beliefs and values, and prove that marijuana should be legalized. One might be surprised by Smith’s approach to writing this article, due to the fact that he or she might assume that a piece of writing that is primarily geared to represent the economic benefits of legalization would not focus so greatly on appealing to its readers’ emotions. However, that individual must realize that an effective piece of writing, not just in business, but in any field, must appeal to several aspects of a reader’s mind. Businesspeople do in fact tend to appreciate numbers and logic. But, if a person’s argument to a crowd of people, even ones in the business world, only contains facts and numbers that appeal to their audience’s logic, and does not address their emotional or ethical beliefs, then the audience will not respond well to the argument's overall purpose. Thus, in order for Smith’s argument about the economic effectiveness of legalization, she was also required to discuss the moral speculation surrounding the topic.

New and Improved Conclusion:

It is quite apparent from all of the analysis in the previous paragraphs of this essay that it isn't as easy as a simple yes or no answer when it comes to answering the questions posed in the introduction of this essay. S.E Smith utilizes several rhetorical strategies that illustrate the idea that decisions cannot be made from strictly economic or moral reasoning. Smith uses a variety of rhetorical strategies ranging from humor, to historical data, to shocking statistics, to appeal to several common American beliefs. One might wonder why Smith, who is attempting to make her readers supporters of marijuana legalization, from an economic perspective, must also attract her audience to the approval of cannabis by appealing to their moral reasoning. However, he or she must acknowledge the fact that even when individuals, such as businesspeople, tend to make decisions based on logic and facts, must also be persuaded from an emotional aspect as well, in order to get a well-rounded representation of the issue.

Revised Introduction

In this post, I will include my new and improved introduction paragraph and explain some of the ways that I changed it from the original.

Prakash, Pranav, "End or a New Beginning?"12/4/2010 via Flickr. Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic

The main difference between my first and second attempt at an introduction is the addition of a grabber. I am not totally sure if this attempt at pulling my readers into my topic is actually effective, but I did my best to make this intro more interesting. As for the rest of my new intro, most of the information is generally the same, because I still needed to provide sufficient context for my thesis and the argument made within my text.

Original Intro:

In the past few years, there has been a great amount of debate in America over the issue of marijuana legalization. There have been many texts written about the pros and cons surrounding this debate, especially after Colorado and Washington’s bold jump into a world of recreationally legal weed. However, most of these writings only look at this issue from a moral standpoint. In order to appeal to a larger audience, S.E Smith, a well known and recognized author, chose to address the debate over marijuana legalization from a different perspective, in order to present the benefits of legalization in a new way. S.E. Smith, employs statistics, historical background, and humor throughout her article "How legalizing pot could save America's economy". These strategies are used in order to appeal to several values in her predominantly American readers, whether or not they were originally supporters or opponents of legalizing marijuana before reading the article, and effectively makes it seem as though legalization is the only option for moral and economic prosperity in America, from both logical and emotional standpoints.

New and Improved Intro:

If your state was offered $76 million in tax revenue in one year, would you turn down that opportunity? I would assume that a majority of you would answer this question with an overwhelming no. However, what if I told you that all of that profit would come from the legalization of marijuana? For a lot of people, finding out where that money is coming from would sway their answer to the first question. Ever since Washington and Colorado, which is the state that actually made $76 million dollars in 2014, voted to legalize marijuana, there has been a fervent debate occurring about whether or not legalization is the right path for America (McCormick, 2015). Most of the published public arguments that are made around this issue only try to appeal to or alter their audience’s moral beliefs, while others only attempt to transform people’s views from looking at the issue from a logical and economic viewpoint. However, S.E. Smith, a well respected and award-winning novelist, didn’t chose to follow the typical path for producing a text surrounding the issue of marijuana legalization. In this essay, I will analyze the ways in which an effective argument in business is constructed, in prove that you as fellow business majors will be able to construct your own arguments and be able to identify properly executed arguments.  Smith, employs statistics, historical background, and humor throughout her article "How legalizing pot could save America's economy". These strategies are used in order to appeal to several values in her predominantly American readers, whether or not they were originally supporters or opponents of legalizing marijuana before reading the article, and effectively makes it seem as though legalization is the only option for moral and economic prosperity in America, from both logical and emotional standpoints.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

This post will contain the names of my peers whose drafts I performed peer editing on. This post will also include my reflection on project two so far, based on what my peers have said about my draft and by answering the provided questions in A Student's Guide.

Kringen, Shannon, "magical file."2/17/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

For the peer review portion of this deadline, I looked into the drafts of Annelise and Lauren. I learned a lot from evaluating my peers, and am now able to apply that knowledge to my own draft.

1. Do you have an identifiable thesis? Does it point to the specific rhetorical strategies you analyze in your essay, or are you merely using vague terms?

I feel that I definitely have an identifiable thesis. Thought it may be somewhat lengthy, my thesis addresses how I plan to perform my analysis by looking deeply into how the author uses historical data, humor, and shocking statistics, in order to effectively appeal to common values within American culture, and prove that marijuana must be legalized. I think my thesis is quite specific.

2. How have you decided to organize your essay? Does each paragraph have a central point that is supported with evidence from the text and in-depth analysis?

I chose to organize the body paragraphs of my essay by the values and beliefs shared by the audience that the author of my text was trying to appeal to. Within those paragraphs I analyzed Smith's use of specific rhetorical strategies that further prove that ending the prohibition of marijuana would reflect common American beliefs, more so than keeping it illegal.

3. Did you clearly identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation and/or structure?

I feel as though I slightly addressed some elements of my text's rhetorical situation- author (credibility) and audience, but I feel like I need to add more detail that explains the rhetorical situation. In my revised introduction I plan on explaining the context of the debate and text more, in hopes that this will allow my essay to have a fair analysis of my text's rhetorical situation.

4. Did you explain how and why certain rhetorical strategies were employed? Did you discuss what effects these strategies have on the intended audience and overall effectiveness of the text?

I really focused truly explaining the how and why about the rhetorical strategies that I analyzed, and I think I did this quite well. I explained how the strategies appealed to the values and beliefs that Smith was trying to play off of within her audience, which consequently helped to prove the overall purpose of the text. 

5. Are you thoughtfully using evidence in each paragraph? Do you mention specific examples from the text and explain why they are relevant?

Yes, I am definitely using adequate evidence in each of my paragraphs. I incorporate an array of direct quote, paraphrasing, and summarizing within my essay. I really tried to analyze each of my chosen pieces of support and explain why they have meaning within Smith's and my overall argument.

6. Do you leave your reader wanting more? Do you answer the "so what" question in your conclusion?

I do believe that I answer the "so what" question in my current conclusion, because I show my readers how the text that I chose to study in my analysis and the strategies within it are relevant to all acts of public speech, especially those in business. I want to inspire my readers to feel confident that they will know how to identify a reliable and effective written argument, and be able to perform a similar analysis. 

Punctuation, Part 1

In this post I will explore three topics of punctuation, from Rules for Writers, that gave me new knowledge that I can use to improve my writing.

Jes, "anthropophagy." 10/22/2010 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

1. Colon-

• Use a colon after an independent clause to direct attention to a list, an appositive, a quote, a summary, or an explanation
• Avoid common misuses: between a verb and its object or compliment, between a preposition and its object, after such as/ including/ for example
• This portion of "Punctuation" showed me that the colon can be incorporated into my writing in more ways than I originally thought. It can be somewhat easy to misuse a colon and misinterpret its correct uses, however, if properly executed, a colon can really add great effect to one's writing.

2. Unnecessary Commas-

• Do not use a comma between compound elements that are not independent clauses
• Do not use commas to set off restrictive or mildly parenthetical elements.
• Avoid common uses of comma: after although, after a subordinating clause, after such as or like
• One aspect of the portion of "Punctuation" that was interesting to me was that fact that one mustn't separate a clause that is being used as a modifier, if that modifier is crucial to the overall meaning of the sentence. I typically tend to misuse commas in my writing, therefore reading this section was helpful in reminding me the basic uses of commas.

3. Semicolon-

• Use a semicolon between closely related independent clauses not joined by a conjunction
• Avoid common misuses of semicolon: between a subordinate clause and the rest of the sentence, between an appositive and the word that it refers to 
• This section of "Punctuation" was helpful in reminding me that a semicolon can be used to connect independent clauses that are relevant to one another, but lack conjunctions (but, and, nor, for). My sentences are usually quite lengthy and I worry a lot of the time that my writing has run-ons, thus using more semicolons based on the knowledge I obtained from this reading could really help me.

Reflection:

After peer editing the rhetorical analysis drafts by Annelise and Lauren I leaned a lot more about the grammar points that I addressed in this post earlier.

For instance while reading Annelise's draft I was able to identify a sentence that needed a semicolon, rather than a comma:

"The use of the word 'phony' is not a descriptive word; it is a spiteful word."

• Originally the semicolon in this sentence was a comma, but after reading the "Punctuation" pages from our textbook I was confident in asserting that a semicolon should be used here, because it connects two related independent clauses. I typically struggle with grammar in my own writing, and usually am unable to point out grammatical errors in my peers' writing, thus to be able to find an error in Annelise's draft proved that the reading that I performed for this post was effective.

While reading Jenny's draft I came across a really beneficial use of a colon:

"Van Roekel brings up his credibility once again in the conclusion of his article: 'After decades spent teaching math and visiting schools across the country…'(Van Roekel)."

• When doing my reading about colons I was informed that a common use for colons is to introduce quotes. However, I was pretty skeptical about how this would be done. But after peer reviewing Jenny's draft I was able to see at least two examples of colons being used effectively, thus I am more confident that I will be able to use colons in my draft as well.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

This post will provide a link to the rough draft of my rhetorical analysis.

Kevan, "Work in Progress." 10/8/2011 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Click here for the draft of my rhetorical Analysis.

Dear Peer Reviewers,

I would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to edit my rhetorical analysis. Before you start reading and editing my work I would just like to tell you my major concerns about my writing that I would like you to help me resolve.

-Please help my grammar!!
-I want your feedback about whether the structure and approach of my analysis seems effective?
-Did you like how I ordered my body paragraphs based on American values?
-Do I use too many quotes?

If you could just assess and help me improve those aspects of my writing that would help greatly.

Thanks!!

Practicing Summary & Paraphrase

In this post I will include a quote from my chosen text. Then I will practice my paraphrasing and summary skills of that same quote.

César.Gutiérrez, "-." 11/26/2010 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

Original Source:

"For a country obsessed with free market capitalism and government spending, the United States has been slow to act on repealing marijuana prohibition, thanks to the tangled associations between marijuana and morality. In a nation where substances like tobacco and alcohol remain legal, highly regulated, and highly profitable, it's surprising to see marijuana still tarred in stigma — especially when Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all admitted to having a toke (whether they inhaled or not)" (Smith, 2014).

My Paraphrase of Original Source:

• S.E. Smith, author of the article "How pot could save America's economy" asserts her opinion that America, a country that values monetary profitability so greatly, must no longer view marijuana in such a negative way. Furthermore, she states that marijuana should be legalized like other substances, including alcohol and tobacco, in order for the U.S. to benefit from its vast economic potential. Smith also humorously points out the fact that our current and two prior presidents have confessed to using marijuana in the past, which illustrates how it seems overly critical of Americans to have such a poor perception on cannabis (Smith, 2014).

My Summary of the Original Source:

• S.E. Smith, author of the article "How pot could save America's economy" asserts her feelings that America must overcome its moral resistance to legalizing marijuana, and reap the many economic benefits from its sale, just like other legalized substances (Smith, 2014).

Project 2 Outline

This post will include a detailed outline of Project 2, using the new knowledge I have obtained and will reflect on from the reading, which was titled Writing Your Rhetorical Analysis.

Verdier, Christophe, "Alone in front of the sea." 12/27/2010 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

I was reminded in the thesis portion of the reading that in addition to analyzing the strategies employed by the author of my text, I also need to evaluate the effectiveness of those strategies' persuasiveness within my thesis statement. Thus, I feel like I have to edit my thesis to include an argument that I create. The introduction part of the text informed me that in an analysis of a text one doesn't have to give all possible background on an issue, rather merely providing essential background information regarding the issues addressed in the text itself. Learning that analytical claims must be debatable but still supported by the text was another effective lesson to learn, and that closing sentences to body paragraphs are essential in proving a paragraph's worth. Also, unlike what has been instilled in my mind, which is that conclusions simply restate main idea, in a rhetorical analysis a conclusion is used to analyze why the arguments I feel the strategies I chose to discuss are or are not truly effective.

Introduction:

• Background info:
• who the author is and what credibility this gives her
• the context of the text when it was written and how things have changed (or not) since then
• address how this controversy has only been debated from a moral standpoint, but money has a lot to do with legalization of marijuana.

• Thesis:
• Well-known and respected author, S.E. Smith, employs statistics, historical background, and humor throughout her article "How legalizing pot could save America's economy". These strategies are used in order to appeal to the values of her predominately American readers, whether or not they were originally supporters or opponents of legalizing marijuana before reading the article, and effectively makes it seem as though legalization is the only option for moral and economic prosperity in America, from both logical and emotional standpoints.

Body 1:

• Analytical Claim: Smith addresses a common American belief within her article, which is that history repeats itself, to effectively persuade her readers that marijuana must be legalized.
• Sub Claim- The author uses historical data to illustrate why America's prohibition on alcohol failed, in order to show how the banning of alcohol of the past is quite similar to the current prohibition of marijuana, thus proving that it too must be put to a stop.
• Support- "In a 1970 essay for the New York Times, Gore Vidal
  spoke to a previous era of prohibition in U.S. history, cautioning the reader to avoid repeating the lessons of the past. Vidal wrote, 'No one in Washington today recalls what happened during the years alcohol was forbidden to the people by a Congress that thought it had a divine mission to stamp out Demon Rum and so launched the greatest crime wave in the country's history, caused thousands of deaths from bad alcohol, and created a general (and persisting) contempt for the laws of the United States.'"
• " Forty-four years later, the editorial board of the same publication was calling for full legalization. 'It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol...'"

• Sub Claim- The author uses shocking statistics to show just how expensive it is to keep marijuana illegal.
• Support- "The drug war costs the U.S. government a tremendous amount annually... Instead of wasting $1 trillion on direct law enforcement initiatives yearly to investigate suspected growers, traffickers, and dealers, the government could focus on more pressing initiatives."

• Sub Claim- Smith employs humor in her appeal to the value of how history repeats itself to show how the harsh ideas against marijuana are out-dated, especially when out past three Presidents have all confessed to using the drug that is viewed in such a judgmental fashion.
• Support-"In a nation where substances like tobacco and alcohol remain legal, highly regulated, and highly profitable, it's surprising to see marijuana still tarred in stigma — especially when Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all admitted to having a toke (whether they inhaled or not)."

Body 2:

• Analytical Claim: The article is effective in appealing to a common American belief that equality is a crucial corner stone in life, and that citizens of the U.S. should be willing to help their neighbors whenever possible.
• Sub Claim- Smith utilizes shocking statistics that will really appeal to her readers, emotional and moral beliefs. She proves to her audience that far too many people, especially minorities, are currently unjustly incarcerated for non-violent drug charges, including marijuana.
• Support-"An estimated one in four people are in prison solely because of non-violent drug offenses, including possession, sales, and repeat offenses related to marijuana."
• "The vast majority of these individuals are black and Latino, reflecting racial imbalances in the justice system — people of color are more likely to be profiled, more likely to be caught, and less likely to be able to bring an adequate defense to court. "   

• Sub Claim- The author further appeals to her audience's emotions by reminding them that when marijuana is legalized many individuals will be able to stay with their families, thus allowing them to work and consequently help society, which also appeals to readers' logic.
• Support- "Systemic poverty can be directly linked to fractured communities, such as those that have been torn apart by the drug war. Allowing men to remain with their families, economically participate in their communities, and contribute to society boosts not only their own economic chances and those of their families, but the community as a whole."
• "Opening the prison doors would be a good start to solving the thorny problem of entrenched poverty among communities of color in the United States — and it's worth noting that poor communities are themselves an economic drain, requiring more government support and a stronger safety net because they are unable to support themselves."

Body 3:

• Analytical Claim: In addition to achieving her goal of proving the need for a country-wide halt on current weed prohibition by appealing to her readers' acknowledgement that history repeats itself and that equality and fairness should be prevalent in all aspects of life, Smith further attracts people to the idea of legalization through catering to the typical American appreciation of money.
• Sub Claim- The author portrays how the government is losing the potential to make a ton of money, by legalizing marijuana, that could benefit a lot of people in return.
• Support- "For a country obsessed with free market capitalism and government spending, the United States has been slow to act on repealing marijuana prohibition..."
• "Average annual trade in marijuana is estimated at $113 billion, which represents nearly $45 billion in taxes slipping through our fingers..."

• Sub Claim- Statistics and effective appeal to logic are used by the author when she goes into great detail about how legalization will benefit many industries in America. Thus portraying the idea that legalization not only appeals to government officials, but hardworking Americans as well.
• Support- As mentioned in the text a plethora of industries will benefit if marijuana is legalized, including: transportation (trucking, rails), packaging, retail, processing, and tourism
• "For labor unions, this could indirectly provide an opportunity to reopen negotiations over pay, working hours, and benefits, which would stimulate further localized economic growth."

• Sub Claim- Smith uses humor in her description of how legalization could benefit tourism to show how in some states, specifically her home state of California, marijuana has already become the norm, which helps to remind readers that legalization isn't such a huge issue.
• Support- "While the streets of San Francisco and Berkeley already ring skunky with the scent of marijuana at some times of the year, full legalization would lead to more open usage of the drug, along with an uptick in tourist rates to regions well-known for their crop and the quality of their marijuana products, such as the Bay Area."

Conclusion:

• Discuss how the above support for the author's appeal to typical and widespread American values, while defending marijuana legalization, makes it seem un-American to be an opponent of legalization.
• Address how in a typical business argument logic and numbers are crucial to prove a point, but emotional and ethical appeal to audience is imperative also. Business people do indeed like hard facts, however they are still human in an emotional aspect on the inside, thus finding a balance between logic and emotion while formulating an argument about an issue pertaining to business is very important. 

Reflection:

I learned a lot after reading and commenting on Breanna's and Annelise's posts for their outlines. Both of my peers provided a lot of examples and support from their chosen text to prove their claims, which reassured me that I didn't put to many quotes from my article in my outline. One thing that both Breanna and Annelise pointed out in their analysis of the reading for this post and within their outlines was the fact that the conclusion is very important and should have a real purpose, rather than just restating earlier ideas. Specifically, Breanna pointed out that one's conclusion might be geared to invoke further thought for the author's audience. I think that this is definitely something that I should keep in mind, especially to avoid the typical summary based conclusion that I am used to writing. 

Draft Thesis Statements

This post will contain two possible thesis statements that I can potentially use for my rhetorical analysis. Also, this post will include my thoughts about what will be easy and difficult about this project moving forward.

Grassi, Irene, "Rock Balancing #3." 6/25/2014 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

1. Well-known and respected author, S.E. Smith, employs statistics, historical background, and humor throughout her article "How legalizing pot could save America's economy". These strategies are used in order to appeal to the values of her predominately American, whether they were originally supporters or opponents of legalizing marijuana, and make it seem as though legalization is the only option for prosperity in America from both logical and emotional standpoints.

2. The article "How legalizing pot could save America's economy", written by award winning novelist, S.E. Smith, contains statistics, historical background of prohibition, and humor, in order to portray the moral and economic need for marijuana to be legalized. Smith further achieves this goal by intertwining these rhetorical strategies in paragraphs that appeal to American values and beliefs.

Before starting the required reading for this blog post I was really nervous about how I was going to express my ideas within my analysis. However, after following the steps provided by the textbook and planning out my thoughts in an organized manner I am feeling way more confident about this project now, since the making of this post essentially forced me to layout my claims and examples from the text. I think that my first thesis statement is more effective than my second one, though I want to get feedback from my peers about this. Moving forward from this step my major concern is that each of my body paragraphs has a clear main idea or obviously appeal to beliefs in American culture, since I realize that I will be mentioning certain strategies in more than one my analytical paragraphs. 

Reflection:
I have learned a lot after reading and analyzing the drafts of thesis statements that Ann Emilie and Breanna included in their posts. My peers' theses made me confident in my appreciation of my first thesis. I learned from their drafted theses that finding a balance between being too specific in one's thesis can be an issue later in one's writing process, but not being specific enough can leave readers confused. However, I feel like my peers and my own strongest thesis statements achieve this crucial balance, thus I am confident in all of our's argumentative and analytical success in this project.