For our final paper I decided to stick with the same topic I worked on for the previous paper. I will continue to discuss GMOs. For this paper I’m going to target questions that discuss the safety of GMOs and questions that discuss why GMOs aren’t labeled. GMOs are a hot topic in our modern day. In this paper I’m going to take a stance that is against GMO, as I believe they should be banned entirely. Many people are beginning to shift away from GMOs. The main reason I chose this stance is because I feel like we should all know what is in our food. Since GMOs aren’t labeled, it leads me to question what exactly it is that we are eating. After incidences involving Subway and Krafts, I was persuaded against GMOs. Subway, for instance, altered their bread in order for it to have a longer shelf life. This stance is understandable from a economic standpoint. However, once I found out that the bread was made of elements that can be found in yoga-matts (from a health standpoint) I was completely turned away. This is a prime example of a big company that would do anything in order to make money. I feel like if a company like Subway would do this to their own consumers, then why wouldn’t other big companies do the same? My intended audience for this assignment is misinformed consumers. I’m going to take a more emotional route for this paper as I want to engage my audience emotionally. I feel that the audience would be easy to persuade after stating specific examples (such as the incident with Subway). If you ask the common person what a GMO is they would most likely not know. I feel that the common person would side against GMOs after appealing emotionally with them. I will address some studies that support GMOs, in order to testify against them with claims of my own and of sources. Pro GMO writers, like Jon Entine, would say that GMOs are good for society economically and he would state that there is no concrete research to prove against the health defects of them. Not all GMOs are bad for you, but how could there be any excuse for consumers (for example the consumers of Subway) to unknowingly eat substances found in a yoga-matt. In what way is eating a yoga-matt healthy? It is also believed that GMOs lead to some forms of cancers and I will definitely analyze the health defects frequently in my paper.

So far I’m pretty confident that I’m sticking with the topic of GMOs. I’m debating if I should base my essay off of GMO labeling or if I should continue to discuss the safety of GMOs and choose a side. I don’t really have any questions (other than the one previously stated) in regards to the paper. As of now, I feel as if I have a good understanding on the assignment for the paper.

This article is very biased towards the safety for genetically modified organisms. He attacks numerous claims that state that genetically modified foods cause health problems. He attacks many writers that are against genetically modified foods, especially Jeffrey Smith. Entine refutes Smith’s claim, “Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects,” he writes. “But we were not supposed to know about these problems…the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them.” Overall, the article is very pro genetically modified foods and their safety.

In Jon Entine’s article, “The Debate About GMO Safety is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion- Meal Study”, Entine is very biased towards genetically modified organisms as he makes his claim that they are completely safe. He attacks numerous claims that state that genetically modified foods cause health problems. He attacks writers that are against genetically modified foods, especially Jeffrey Smith. Entine refutes Smith’s claim, “Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects,” he writes. “But we were not supposed to know about these problems…the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them.” Entine quotes Smith in order to immediately testify against his claims. Entine goes on to state that there are no trustworthy claims towards the health defects of GMOs because from a logical standpoint animals consume 70-90 percent of GMO crops and because of this, if GMOs were not safe, farms around the world would be littered with dead and sick animals. Overall, the article is very pro genetically modified foods and their safety.

Entine, Jon. “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study.” Forbes. Forbes, 17 September 2014. Web. 6 November 2014.

Introduction:

In the introduction of the book “They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing”, the authors provide us with correct structure when writing an essay. The authors believe that they have the best template in order to make an effective argument. The authors encourage their readers to use the given template. The authors make several arguments. One argument that is made is that people can’t make real arguments without being provoked. These arguments take a lot of time and thinking.  After reading the introduction, I believe that these templates offer a good way of structuring your essays. I believe that organization is key in every essay. A clear and organized stream of thoughts allows for the readers to clearly understand points that are being made. It allows for a more coherent piece and argument.

Chapter one:

In chapter one, the authors discuss the importance of what is being said. They essentially say that nothing should be left out of an argument. All important information should not be left out because they can’t assume that the reader knows what they’re talking about. An effective argument is one that can be understood. Their main points can be seen by the following quotes: 1) “…a writer needs to explain what he or she is responding to either before offering that response or, at least, very early in the discussion.”(pg.18) 2) “This little story illustrates an important lesson: that to give writing the most important thing of all-namely, a point- a writer needs to indicate clearly not only his or her thesis but also what larger conversation that thesis is responding to.”(pg.18) 3) “Instead of opening with someone else’s views, you could start with an illustrative quotation, a revealing fact or statistic, or a relevant anecdote.”(pg.20)

After finishing the reading, I don’t really have any questions. One thing that I might want some clarification on is how to effectively address an issue in an argument.

When I imagine “revising” my writing, I think of editing my paper in terms of grammar and in context to the best of my ability in order to fulfill the requirements of the assignment. I tend to leave my main points in tact and I work around my points. I remember when I was writing my college essay to get accepted to schools, I had to go through the most rigorous revision of my life. After peer editing, I realized I no longer liked my topic and thus I had to change my essay completely. I spent hours revising that paper until it was perfect. Revising is when you make changes to your writing in terms of the substance of your paper as whole. Editing is making changes to grammatical aspects of your writing. Proofreading is when you look for any mistakes you might have missed after you have completed the revising and editing portions. I liked Brock Dethier’s piece on revision. I could agree to some aspects of it. One part that I particularly liked was when Dethier claims that revision is unnecessary. I partially agree with his point as he states that people shouldn’t have to revise a paper if they were able to do well on papers that they completed the day before they were due. I do agree with that point. However, I feel like revision is always good as no one can get an absolutely flawless paper in terms of grammar and context without revision.

Currently, I have a clear idea on how I’m going to approach this paper. I’ve structured it in a way that I believe is organized. I feel like organization is key for this paper, as you’re comparing the structure of the two articles. I spent a good amount of time thinking about the topic. I’m definitely going to talk about the pathos of both writings, as both writers have a background in the topics and they show their bias throughout their writings. I’m going to also mention their targeted audiences and how it relates to their style of writing.

ann. 1

ann. 2

ann. 3

ann. 4

For my rhetorical analysis paper, I plan on pursuing economic inequality’s impact on the economy. Originally, I planned on pursuing the topic of Ray Rice’s ban from the NFL, and if the ban was fair. However, I had a difficult time finding opposing argumentative papers on the topic. Anyways, I chose this new topic because it is a prevalent issue in the United States. In one of the articles, the writer is very opinionated about his belief on income inequality having no effect on the economy. I originally had a hard time finding an article that believed the growing gap in economic inequality was good for the economy. However, after looking for an article, I finally came across one. My two articles have a great contrast between the two and the articles, I believe, allow me to develop a better essay because of the huge contrast between the two. I’m motivated to learn more about this topic because I feel like I can make a very compelling essay. I’m interested in the different viewpoints that both articles offer. I also don’t know much about the topics so I’m anxious to learn more about them. I would’ve preferred to do my original topic on Ray Rice because I am very intrigued in the topic and I know a lot about it. However, this new topic allows me to expand my knowledge on something I’m not quite familiar with and I’m intrigued by the challenge it presents. This paper forces us to analyze persuasive and argumentative purposes of two texts and I believe my sources offer such different beliefs that I’m intrigued to see how my paper unfolds.

In the “The Rhetorical Situation”, Bitzer elaborates on the importance of rhetorical situation. Bitzer believes that rhetorical situation is undervalued. In the reading, he discusses the importance of exigence, audience, and constraints. Bitzer continually notes the importance of rhetorical situation, as he relates it to everyday life. Bitzer at one point relates exigence to the weather. He states that examples such as “death, winter, and some natural disasters” are living proof of exigence. He relates  exigence to the people so the audience gains a better understanding on it. Bitzer states that exigence is a situation that can not be changed. The audience is those that are being persuaded by the rhetoric, and the constraints are the limits or the challenges that are placed on the writing. Every piece of writing involves rhetorical situation as the writer always has an intended audience and a point to be made. Rhetorical situation can be altered by any approach that the writer choices.

Personally, I believe Bitzer made good points on rhetorical situations. He did a great job explaining his definitions and relating the piece to aspects outside of writing. He relates it to the real world and thus acknowledges rhetorical situation in a broader scale. I like how Bitzer uses real life situations such as, “The Declaration of Independence, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, Churchill’s Address on Dunkirk, and John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address”, and figures such as John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to support his claims. He did a great job engaging the reader and persuading them with his argument. Overall, I felt that it was a good piece and very helpful for the audience. One question that I would have for Bitzer is what elements of the real world can be altered by discourse?

In Emma Watson’s speech on feminism, her exigence would be for people to put an end to gender inequality. She believes that woman are fully capable to hold jobs that men hold and to take part in social activities, such as sports, just as men do. Her audience would be everyone at the United Nations, the media, and everyone tuning in. Her constraint’s would be the people that are against feminists, and another constraint was that she had to use real life examples in order to support her claims instead of her beliefs or bias. One example she used was how her friend had to quit sports because she was becoming too muscular.

Topic: Should gay marriage be legal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-hamady/the-problem-with-gay-marr_b_1505858.html

Topic: Ray Rice punishment fair or foul?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ray-rice-video-wife-defends-player-blasts-media/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/09/16/why-the-nfls-indefinite-ban-of-ray-rice-wont-stand/