Considering Types

In the following post, I will be reflecting on the information provided in the "Five Basic Types of Public Argument" Box from the Rules for Writers textbook.

Hain, John "Conflict, Disagreement, Discussion" 10/29/2014 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

Causal Argument 

I believe the best argument for my project would be the Causal Argument. The textbook description of this argument mentioned, "...[rebutting] or [contradicting] the arguments in favor of other causes." This is exactly what I have planned to do in my argument. I want to argue that circumcision has stemmed from ancient practices dictated by multiple religions, not medical facts; and, as such, its credibility in the modern world should be reconsidered. Because I am aiming to get my audience to "reconsider" and not actually change their minds about circumcision, I believe this would be the best form of argument for my project.

Evaluative Argument

Another possibility for my argument would be the Evaluative Argument. Though it's not what I originally planned, I can definitely see using this type of argument to evaluate the general effectiveness of circumcision in today's society while drawing on its religious history. The reason I am not entirely sold on this argument is because I can't think of a "single policy" that I would be arguing in favor for. 

Others

I don't see the other types of arguments working for my purposes. I do not favor either side of the circumcision debate, I simply favor the medical implications. As such, I don't think I could adequately make a Position Argument and Proposal Argument.

Reflection

Below are links to the two classmates' blogs I reflected on:

Kelly's -- My Rhetorical Action Plan & Considering Types

Nick's -- My Rhetorical Action Plan & Considering Types

I thought it was very interesting seeing which types/methods Kelly and Nick were considering. In Nick's blog, he seemed to be very well-equipped with any of the methods. This was very different from my topic, as I found the only true fit was in the causal argument. Kelly's blog was very similar to this, she had many possible routes, though seemed confident in one in particular. I would like to see if I can mold my argument into a few more of the argument types. Though I prefer causal and still think it will work best for my Project 3, I would like to explore the other available options.

As a general note, I also found the various ways in which we were applying our arguments to Project 3 interesting. Kelly and Nick seem very confident in their topics, whereas I shifted to a different aspect of my topic from what I discussed in Project 1 and 2. I will be interested to read all of our final products.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In the following post, I will present my plan for Project 3 by answering the "Developing a Rhetorical Action Plan" questions in the Rules for Writers textbook.

Geralt "Business Idea Planning" 3/28/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

Audience 

I am going to try and persuade my audience to reconsider the implications of circumcision in the world of modern medicine.

Knowledge - My audience's knowledge on circumcision in neonates comes from tradition. As such, their predisposition is to support circumcision merely because it has been a routine practice since the ancient world. This is something that I will be focusing on heavily in my argument. 

Values - My audience holds religious values and, as such, place a lot of importance in what religion dictates in terms of circumcision. On another note, however, they also value the safety of their child. 

Standards of Argument - Medical facts are always beneficial in an argument trying to discredit a medical procedure. I, however, attempting to add something new to the controversy, am going to piece together the religious background of the controversy, and analyze it on an historical context. As such, I will have to translate and condense the historical information I present into an easily understood format.

Visual Elements - As I can't get too graphic with my topic, I believe that in order to tastefully incorporate visual images, I will have to take from ancient paintings. I also plan to make the presentation of my argument aesthetically pleasing, whatever form I decide to present it in. 

Purpose - I will be challenging a long-held tradition. As such, my purpose is to raise awareness in my audience. I do not want to force their opinion to change, rather, I wan't them to be aware of all the necessary information for them to make an intelligent and informed decision on the circumcision of their child. 

Genre

1. Scholarly Journals -- Articles

All of the research I've done for the past two projects has consisted entirely of scholarly articles. As such, I am considering first and foremost of writing in this genre. 

Two examples of the scholarly genre are linked here:

From the Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases -- Circumcision 

From The Objective Standard -- Circumcision in America

Function - This genre enables me to communicate historical, religious and medical facts without the political controversy that might be associated with other genres. It's intended to reach a at least somewhat medically advanced audience. The topic will be taken seriously in this genre.

Setting - This genre would (as seen above) be in a medical/renowned journal of some sort. This could theoretical be anywhere.

Rhetorical Appeals - As I haven chosen to argue against circumcision and religion, I will have to be very persuasive. I plan on incorporating all of the rhetorical appeals, focusing heavily on pathos and logos. With ethos, I can question the ethics of circumcision, etc.

Visual Elements - In the many scholarly articles I looked at, there were oftentimes charts and graphs to make data more understandable. I would like to somehow incorporate such graphs in my argument.

Style - The style will definitely be formal.


2. Documentaries 

I'm not sure this would exactly fulfill the requirements of the project, but I believe a documentary would adequately portray the information/argument I am focusing on. I plan to focus on the religious and historical roots/background of circumcision. Documentaries often accomplish similar goals.

Two examples of the documentary genre are linked here:
BBC documentary -- Circumcise Me?
Michael Schaap documentary -- Mom, Why Did You Circumcise Me?

Function - Documentaries provide historical background to an argument. My plan is to utilize the historical and religious background of circumcision to discredit as a modern practice.

Setting - Documentaries are produced by filmmaking companies. BBC (mentioned above) is a very popular source for documentaries.

Rhetorical Appeals - I think documentaries, in large part, convey information through ethos. Visually, documentaries provide more than just words to illicit certain responses from the audience.

Visual Elements - Documentaries are 100% visual. Every element would be visual, and equally as important as the narration.

Style - I believe this genre would need to be academic. Documentaries don't always narrate in the most formal, advanced sentences, but they are always extremely informative.

Positive Reactions 

1. Realization that the practice of circumcision may have fallen out of style in the modern world.
2. Consideration of the ethical implications of circumcision.
3. Consideration of the medical implications of circumcision.

Negative Rebuttals

1. Religion is an important part of some people's lives, medical evidence against it will not change people's faith. 

          -I'm not sure there's a way to refute this point. My defense, rather, would be that I am not trying to impose on someone's religions, but just open their eyes to religion in the modern world.

2. Not enough medical evidence has discredited circumcision completely yet.

          -Yes, but many studies are in the process of doing so.

3. In terms of ethics: Circumcision becomes more painful the longer someone waits, which is what will happen if it's not performed at birth.

          -Yes, but pain is not a good rebuttal when it comes to altering a child's life forever with one decision. 

Analyzing Purpose

In the following post, I will provide answers to the Rules for Writers' "Thinking through the Purpose of Your Public Argument" questions in the form a coggle cluster.

Bohland, Alyssa, "Screenshot of 'Analyzing Purpose Coggle'" 10/27/15 via Coggle.

My coggle, pictured above, maps out my argument while focusing, as well, on the purpose of my argument. I made the decision to center my argument on the concept that religion is no longer a viable justification for circumcision given the practice of modern medicine.

The link to my coggle (if it's hard to see) can also be found HERE.

Analyzing Context

In the following post, I will be considering the context of my argument by answering the "Reading the Context of Your Public Debate" questions in the Rules for Writers textbook.

Plourde, Mathieu "Contexts" 2/9/2013 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Reading the Context of Your Public Debate

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

The schools of thought are fairly simple in my controversy. Though there are many deeper levels of the controversy, the main groups are either for or against circumcision in neonates. 

What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?

The major points of contention are as follows: Is it ethical to circumcise an infant according to the will of his parents? Does circumcision truly aid in preventing sicknesses such as HIV and aids? Is religion really a good justification in today's society?

What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?

The common ground is providing for the neonate. Circumcision hasn't yet been fully discredited, so its continuance isn't truly harmful. The question is whether it is ethical to perform such a life-altering procedure on an infant who cannot make the decision for themselves. 

What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

The main difference in ideologies is in the form of religion - more specifically, religion vs. medicine. Circumcision for centuries has been a mandate of religion (multiple different religions). As god(s) were the highest form of power, sickness was seen in terms of fate/karma and not medicine. Science today contradicts this view.

What specific action do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

At the very least, these perspectives (moreso that against circumcision) ask that their audience be aware that there must be a change in thinking with modern medicine and age-old practices. More emphatic pieces (like the one I analyzed in Project 2) urge their audience to action, sometimes in verbose ways. 

What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?

Both medical and historical perspectives will be best in supporting my argument. I chose to argue against circumcision, in large part because I have a good idea in how I could format such an argument (in all reality, I have no opinions on circumcision). Pointing out the flaws that have come from religious/historical thinking and then supporting this with medical facts, I believe I can pose a very argument against circumcision in neonates.

What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?

Medical perspectives can be equally beneficial and harmful to my argument. Plenty evidence still exists supporting circumcision. My goal will be to either discredit this by providing counter-evidence, or use a method that dismisses this evidence altogether.

Reflection

In my reflection, I read Morgan and Isabel's posts.

I found both Morgan and Isabel's answers to the questions very interesting. Morgan and I, though we have a similar topic in that they both involve the well-being of children, had very different approaches to the argument. She emphasized the fact that personal experience seems to one of the best sources of information in her argument. With my argument on circumcision, personal experience isn't really a viable source as the age at which most males are circumcised in one that they can not remember. It will be interesting to see how both our arguments develop.

In Isabel's blog, she mentioned how she was going to use her own personal experience to bring a new light to her argument. I think this will be very beneficial for her in his Project, as I am already struggling with the idea of how I'm going to bring something new to the argument considering I am no professional and also have no experience with circumcision.

Audience and Genre

In the following post, I will be suggesting possible audience's for my research. Additionally, I will provide the sources/genres of writing in which I would communicate my argument to these readers.

Henry "Lost Tourist" 9/4/2008 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

Group 1 - Government Officials

This might outwardly be a strange audience considering my topic (the ethics of circumcision in neonate males); however, I believe it is relevant. As circumcision in neonates gains more attention and more accusations are posed against it, internationally, governments are going to have to consider whether they will step in to impose any regulations. Doctors can make suggestions, but only laws can truly influence the controversy.

Places to Publish Research 

     Bill Proposition 
          Examples: Implementing a $0.05 deposit on cigarette butts
                                  Bill of Rights
**Note: I definitely don't think this is the best option for our intents and purposes in this Project as bills are relatively short; however, I decided to include it because I thought it was a viable step in figuring out how I would successfully communicate my research to the government.

     Government Hearings
          Examples: Ethics Committee Hearing H.Con.Res.113
                                  Ethics Committee Hearing H. Rept. 113 - 487

Genre

The genre of any government based piece of literature will be intelligent and composed of facts only. The article I analyzed in Project 2 was lacking in this aspect. The government is mostly unconcerned with personal opinions when it comes to making laws and bills. For this reason, all the examples provided above are concise and to the point, befitting the genre. 

Group 2 - Doctors

Doctors are a very important audience in any controversies in the medical field. Neonatal doctors perform countless circumcision daily, routinely and (in most cases) with hardly any consideration of unethics. As experienced doctors have enforced and encouraged the practice for years, they will be interested in knowing why it is being questioned, and if that doubt is liable. Doctors may be a very hard group to convince. 

Places to Publish

     Medical Journals - ELSEVIER

          Examples: Who is on the medical team? Shifting the boundaries of belonging on the ICU

                                      Toward a multidimensional understanding of culture for health interventions

     Dissertations 

           Examples: Violence of Behavior Patterns Towards Ritual Circumcision

                                      Male Circumcision in the United States...

Genre

Similar to the conventions of government writings, writing for doctors must also be very intelligent and soundly presented. I believe there can be a slight amount of opinion infused in your writing though. Part of a doctor's credibility comes from their experience. As such, it is important to reference these experiences in doctoral writing. 

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In the following post, I provide the link to my extended bibliography for Project 3 topic.

Duret-Lutz, Alexandre. "Bibliography" 12/11/2006 via flickr. Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

The link to my extended annotated bibliography can be found HERE.

I provide both the annotations and the descriptions as to why I selected the six sources beneath each annotation, respectively.

Narrowing My Focus

In the following post, I will elaborate on a select few of the questions I presented in my previous post, emphasizing why I find they are important to know in the context of my selected controversy.

ClkerFreeVectorImages "Forum Question Answer" 10/22/2012 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

Important Questions

Have any men spoken out about their own circumcision, having been unsatisfied with the decision they were unable to make?

My previous research didn't lead me to any sources from men who were personally against the practice of circumcision. Without evidence from this group, the argument is completely invalid. Circumcision may be unnecessary, but it is not necessarily harmful. A firsthand account from a man is the only way to resolve this issue.

What justifications do religions give for circumcision? Do they have any convincing health factors of their own?

I think this question is both viable and interesting. The main motivation for circumcision throughout history has always been religion. I am curious to know exactly why religion so heavily supported and enforced circumcision of neonates. Do they have any health benefits of their own? Or is it only a suspicion related to preconceived notion? This will help to answer the question of whether circumcision itself was even started with any explicit purposes 

Are other cultures (apart from America) starting to question circumcision in the modern world?

This question is in large part to define the scope of the controversy. Is this something that is only important in first world countries? Knowing this answer would help to confirm who the true audience is, and moreso, whether there really is a controversy at all, or if it's simply a slight unsettlement in the traditionally way of thinking about circumcision. 

Questions About Controversy

In the following post, I will be analyzing questions I still have about my topic. These questions will help me in beginning to craft my argument for Project 3.

OpenClipartVectors "Number 3" 10/22/2013 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

I've decided to center my public argument for Project 3 on the controversy I utilized in Project 2: The controversy of performing circumcisions on neonate males. 

Who

Who is speaking on behalf of the infants? Meaning: Are there any parents speaking against circumcision, rather than only doctors?

Are there any females concerned with this issues, or only males as befits the topic?

Have any circumicsed men since spoken out about there own circumcision, having been unsatisfied with the decision they were unable to make?

What 

What are the most explicit endangerments to the health of a circumcised neonate?

What justification do religions give for circumcision? Anything health related, or all suspicion?

What evidence exists for the supposed health risks? Enough to be significant?

When

Is circumcision really still relevant in such a technologically advanced society?

Do the same original justifications of the past still exist today for circumcision?

When did circumcision become a ubiquitous procedure in first-world countries?

Where

In what group exactly did the question of whether circumcision is necessary unfold? Meaning: Are previously circumcised men responsible for the debate, or just doctors in general?

Are other cultures (apart from American) starting to question circumcision in the context of modern-medicine?

Are there any other mediums that participate in this controversy, besides doctors that is? Are religions speaking out?

How

As this is a relatively new controversy, how does it appear it will develop in the future?

How has it developed in a sense of time? Has this been "in the works" for a long time, or is it just now spiking people's interests?

How do both sides plan on enforcing their opinion? Will they turn to different mediums, as this is mostly present in scholarly articles?

Reflection on Project 2

In the following post, I will reflect on the process of writing my Rhetorical Analysis utilizing the "Reflecting on Your Own Revision Process" from the Writing Public Lives reading.

Geralt. "Thinking Light Bulb" 2/21/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

Reflecting on Your Own Revision Process

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

The most heavily revised portion of my paper was the introduction and conclusion, in large part because the blog post indicated that we should through out our old ones.


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

I reconsidered and reorganized my thesis to more thoroughly embody the purpose of the project. I did not change the organization of the paper as I felt it was in accordance with the Project 2 Purpose. However, my introduction in general was lacking in this aspect.


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

My changes were a result of both reconsidering the audience and shifting my purpose. I, overall, needed to step back and readjust the broader scope of the project. In focusing so heavily on the article itself, I forgot about the main purpose of the project.


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

In the context of the project, this increases my credibility as (with my changes) I was able to actually accomplish the purpose of the project. For example, if I had turned in my rough draft without any of the changes, I would have completely failed to complete my professor's wish - to write an article on how someone in my field constructs an argument, etc.


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

These changes better tuned my paper to the audience (new students in my field). This is also related to what I said above in number 4.


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

I really didn't change anything in terms of how I actually wrote the paper. I have a writing style that (I hope) works for me, and I don't really feel the need to change it in most cases. I did listen to those who edited my paper as far as sentences that didn't seem to fit or make sense.


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

Generally speaking, the structural and stylistic changes will hopefully help my audience to understand everything better, not just the purpose, innately through the fact that everything transitions well and is easy to read.


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

No. I have been writing essays like this all through high school. I was very well-versed in the genre. One new addition, however, was our intense focus on the Rhetorical Situation itself.


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

One thing I really did learn was to make 100% sure you understand your purpose when you start writing. That sounds like a really trivial thing, but I definitely strayed from the Project 2 purpose here and there. I understood the conventions of what we were writing, but didn't translate them well into who we were writing for.

Reflection

I read Morgan and Kelly's reflection blog posts. 

We seemed to unanimously agree that we all learned to focus more on the beginning stages of writing  in any project. In this project particular, that meant ensuring that we understood the purpose of the project and who we were writing for. Kelly and I both agreed that (8) we understood the conventions of writing a Rhetorical Analysis, but got lost in the translation of those conventions into Project 2. I related very well to what Kelly and Morgan said in their reflections on the Project 2 process.

Project 2: Rhetorical Analysis

In the following post, I provide the link to my completed Rhetorical Analysis of "The case against circumcision," by George Hill.

Wade, Matt H. "Fireworks on the 4th of July" 7/4/2009 via Wikipedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Rhetorical Analysis

Link: The Compromised Man

Punctuation, Part 2

In the following post I will be analyzing three more topics from the Rules for Writers advice on common punctuation mistakes and how they relate to my writing style and paper.

StockSnap "Dictionary" 4/19/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

The Apostrophe 

I consider myself well-versed in most apostrophe rules. However, one I have always struggled with is whether one should be used with plurals of certain words that don't show possession. Section 36d stated Do not use an apostrophe to form the plural of numbers, letters, abbreviations, and words mentioned as words. It also clarifies that there are exceptions, such as using apostrophes to form the plural of lowercase letters. 

Quotation Marks

Everything the book said about quotation marks were things I was already aware of. They emphasize that quotation marks can be used to set off words in a sentence. They also mention that long quotations don't traditionally include quotations; but, rather, are set apart from the text. 

End Punctuation 

This section was also self-explanatory. It talked in large part about when it is appropriate to use question and exclamation marks in sentences. I don't necessarily think this is viable in the context of this project, as it's not the exclamation mark kind of paper. 

Examples from my Draft 

At this point in the process, I have already extensively edited my draft. As such, I didn't find there were many grammatical mistakes past typing too fast and having said on instead of own. The following are examples of my use of two of the above mentioned punctuations. 

Quotation Marks - title of an article is in quotation marks

The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision article by George Hill, “The case against circumcision,” presents a weakly constructed argument by blatantly defying the organizational norms for an intellectual and rhetorical piece in the medical field.

Quotation Marks and Apostrophe - quote from the article; society's - possessive

Hill claims that medical society’s hidden, emotionless intentions are concealed behind their fear of “...[lost] income and… risk of lawsuits…” (Hill, 2007, p. 318) should the public come to realize the deception.

Paragraph Analysis 2

In the following post, I will relate what I found after performing a more in-depth analysis of my Rhetorical Analysis, more specifically, the paragraphs in said draft.

ClkerFreeVectorImages "Magnifying Glass" 10/17/2014 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

I am inherently more comfortable with this form/genre of writing. The QRG was new territory for me and, as such, I struggled more with the formatting and conventions of Project 1. However, I took a lot of time on my Project 2 Draft, making sure I fully analyzed the argument by structurally organizing both the overall layout and internal layout of the individual paragraphs. The analysis confirmed my belief that my draft is ready to be turned into a final copy and submitted for grading, though I am still somewhat uncertain about the coherence of my new introduction/conclusion. 

Here is the link to my Copy for Paragraph Analysis 2.  

Revised Conclusion

In the following post, I will revise the conclusion of my rhetorical analysis according to the "Tips for Writing Conclusions" in the Student's Guide.

EWikist "The End Book" 8/23/2010 via Wikipedia Commons. Public Domain License.

Similar to the improvement of my introduction, I attempted to largely alter my conclusion by introducing the main idea of the project. I also utilized the Circle Back method as listed under the "Tips for Writing Conclusions" in the Student's Guide. My conclusion is longer, fuller and more fitting for the project's intentions.

Original 

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of Rhetorical Analysis Draft" 10/17/2015 via Google Docs.

New and Improved

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of Rhetorical Analysis Draft" 10/17/2015 via Google Docs.

Revised Introduction

In the following post, I will be revising my the original introduction in my Rhetorical Analysis, utilizing the Student's Guide.

Kulinski, Daniel "Approve" 7/14/2012 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License.

My revised introduction is better than my original in main part because it is now complete and (hopefully) more successfully incorporates/introduces the main point trying to be achieved in the analysis. I minimized the information I provided about the article itself, and refocused on the purpose of my audience (students in my discipline). Furthermore, I instead added this information (as seen below) into an "extended" introduction; meaning, I made it its own paragraph following the new introduction. 

Original 

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of Rhetorical Analysis Draft" 10/15/15 via Google Docs.

New and Improved

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of Rhetorical Analysis Draft" 10/17/2015 via Google Docs.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In the following post I will reflect on the suggestions made on my Rhetorical Analysis Draft by referring to the Student's Guide advice on revision.

Steve. "Focus on the Point" 9/30/2008 via flickr. Attribution NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.

The draft's I looked at for the peer-review process were Morgan's, titled, "Blame The Parents: How Authors Utilize Rhetoric To Argue Against Spanking Children," and Nick's, titled, "Geoengineering Can Solve The Planet's Global Warming Problem, According To David Keith." 

Revision 

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 like ethos, pathos, and logos?

I spent a considerable amount of time reworking my thesis to ensure it was a strong representation of my paper. I did point to specific rhetorical strategies and did not ever refer to the terms ethos, pathos and logos. 

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 separated each rhetorical strategy I identified into a different part of the essay. While each strategy had multiple paragraphs designated to its analysis, I still attempted to input clear transitions when the next strategy was introduced. I believe I may have been lacking in a sufficient analysis in some places, this is what I will go back and improve.

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

Yes, as stated in my above answers, I took a lot of time focusing on the organization and overall "clearness" of my analysis. I believe I sufficiently identified all the elements, it is the analysis part that I consider improving/adding more to.

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?

Yes. I referred back to the audience very frequently and followed every piece of evidence with my analytical explanation, as is stated in the PIE paragraph format. 

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

This is the aspect that I'm not sure my essay fully clarifies. I mention many examples; however, my concern whenever I write analyses is if I ever appeared to be drifting and thus not "thoughtfully" using my evidence. I will closely analyze what my classmate-editor wrote on this respect. 

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

I am still working on developing a really solid conclusion. I find conclusions to be the most challenging portion of a paper, especially an analysis, as you want to leave the reader with a good impression while still wanting to avoid all the cliche conclusion trends in writing. 

Punctuation, Part 1

In the following post, I will relate what I learned from the sections about punctuation I read in the Rules for Writer's textbook.

Graham, Sean. "Employee Must 'Wash Hands'" 9/5/2006 via flickr. Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

Unnecessary commas

I am most guilty of the subsection that reads "Do not use commas to set off restrictive or mildly parenthetical elements. The examples they provided in the book of when not to add commas really helped me to differentiate when commas are necessary and when they are just in the way. 

Other punctuation marks

I like using punctuation such as dashes, slashes, etc. in my writing. Interestingly, I learned that to form a proper dash in a document, you must use two --, and not just one - as I had been. It's a simple correction, but I actually found it interesting that there's a rule about that specifically. 

The semicolon

I've hated semicolons my whole life. But as english classes became more advanced, they were a necessary introduction into my writing style (did that sentence need a semi-colon? I don't even know). The book gave the same parameters that all other english textbooks do, though I still find that some of the literature I've read doesn't seem to follow these rules either. Is there some instances where the author has creative liberty with semicolons? Overall, I still just don't like semicolons. 

Reflection

I peer-edited Morgan's Project 2 Analysis. She appeared to be very comfortable with semi-colons. One instance in which she utilized a semi-colon is listed below. 

It is generally easy to find information on the author of an online article; clicking their name usually links readers to a short biography on who they are and what credentials they have.

Here she demonstrates rule 34a: Use a semicolon between closely related independent clauses not joined with a coordinating conjunction. It was nice seeing an example of this in Morgan's draft. It helped to solidify this rule in my mind.

***

I also peer-edited Nick's Project 2 Analysis. He demonstrated a well-grounded understanding of comma use in sentence. He wrote the following:

Nevertheless, for those interested in the topic of geoengineering, namely “solar geoengineering” (as Keith calls it), or those in support of the methods, the ideas presented by Keith in the interview may be solid evidence of reliable and credible information.

The commas successfully suit their need of "preventing confusion" (32j) and setting of "transitional and parenthetical expressions" (32f). Analytical essay's can be filled with complicated sentences that require numerous commas. Nick demonstrated a firm grasp on these concepts.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

In the following post, I provide the link to my Project 2 Rhetorical Analysis. Additionally, here is the link to my original article.

Tengrrl. "Digital Rhetoric" 6/20/2012 via flickr. Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic.

My biggest concern in my paper was incorporating the Project 2 Goal along with analyzing the rhetoric of the piece. I'm not sure I referenced that question enough. Also, did it ever feel like I was drifting/altogether off topic. 

Link to my Rhetorical Analysis

Practicing Summary & Paraphrase

In the following post, I will paraphrase and summarize a quote from my article, The case against circumcision, respectively.

DK, Michael. "The puzzle is slowly coming together" 4/28/2007 via flickr. All Rights Reserved License.

Original Source 

(link above)

Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss of function [24]. Failure to grieve... results in a cohort of men who are in denial about their loss. Traumatized persons tend to reenact and repeat their trauma [25]. The compulsion to repeat the trauma and the emotional need to deny the loss results in a large cohort of circumcised men who seek to perpetuate the practice of... circumcision. Such men become the ‘adamant fathers’ who insist on circumcising their sons...

My Paraphrase of the Original Source 

Author George Hill claims that the loss of function acquainted with circumcision is a considerable source of grief to the male gender. Failure to recognize this grief results in the abundance of men (doctors and fathers alike) who preserve the source of their denied trauma. Thus, they are unconsciously compelled to reduce their sons to the same deprival of this bodily function, producing the society of supporters of circumcision.  

My Summary of the Original Source

Author George Hill accuses the perpetrators of circumcision of victimizing their patients and sons as a result of the grief and trauma related to their own deprivation. 

Project 2 Outline

In the following post, I will outline my essay for Project 2 utilizing "The Sections of the Paper" in the Writing Public Lives textbook.

O'Shea, Pete. "Writing Tools" 4/8/2011 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

In the introduction part of my outline, I focused on the book's advice to "set up [my] particular perspective or reading of the text" (122). To satisfy this, I don't believe the introduction has to be very long. I will introduce what is necessary to understand the article and my position, and then proceed with my thesis. I left the body part of my outline much more vague. I find that rhetorical writing is best to not strictly outline the details before you write the analysis itself. In the conclusion, I also followed the book's advice to "think about the implications" of the analysis (125).

Project 2 Outline - The case against circumcision by George Hill

Introduction

1. Context: history of circumcision -- popularity in modern and ancient times (?) BRIEF
• author's extensive involvement/investment in argument 
• argument's development in terms of medical development
• etc.
2. Thesis
• As a medically and religiously encouraged practice, author George Hill argues that society's blind approval of the tradition of circumcision has been the result of a dangerous misconstruction of medical facts. He emphasizes the ignorance in the public opinion through precisely placed sarcasm and an overall condescending tone. Though Hill appears credible in his vast knowledge of the debate, he critically impairs his argument by speaking so disparagingly to his audience. 
• I may still use my second thesis statement 

Body

(separation of paragraphs is not accounted for in this outline)

1. Claim #1 - Sarcasm and its effects
• Multiple sources of evidence
• Hill lessens his credibility in this light as he appears more riotous than medically concerned.
2. Claim #2 - Accusing the audience
• evidence
• Hill appears to not be rhetorically defending his disapproval of circumcision, but moreso just having an outburst over the general 'lack of reaction' the practice has received.
3. Claim #3 - Organization of argument
• Hill organizes the essay in a no-nonsense pattern. He includes subcategories, such as ____, ____, ____ as a chance to provide facts about circumcision in order to emphasize the risks.
• Though this is outwardly beneficial to his argument, each category is laid out in a condescendingly "you're stupid" format. Furthermore, each category, on one level or another accuses the audience of being stupid.

Conclusion

1. Why does this matter in context of the project?
• Remember to answer the question/goal of the project: to depict how an argument is constructed in your discipline 
2. Concluding statement -- rephrase the thesis
• Though Hill is thorough in his depiction of the unethical, unsafe, and unjustified practice of circumcision, he loses credibility in his equally unethical and unjustified treatment of his "ignorant" audience. 

**Note: I kept my outline very brief. In all honesty, I don't find them very helpful in my particular writing process. I find my writing "turns out" better when it involves me simply sitting down and writing. A brief outline helps me in the way that I need, by simply reminding me of the purpose and overall goal of whatever I am writing.

Reflection 

Reading Isabel and Savannah's posts, I saw an outline in its best, most efficient form. They were both very thorough and practically had their entire essay written simply within the contents of their outlines. I view outlines very differently from this viewpoint. They have never been particularly helpful to me as more than a very simplistic and concise roadmap of where your essay will be headed. I didn't include any direct textual evidence (unlike Isabel and Savannah) as I find it is easier to find the right textual evidence whilst writing the essay itself. It was interesting to see the obvious differences in our outlining processes. 

Draft Thesis Statement

In the following post, I present my two thesis statements, following the "Craft Box" process in the Student's Guide textbook. Additionally, here is a link to my article.

Lin, Jonathan. "The Thesis Prayer" 4/10/2010 via flickr. Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License.

Creating a Rhetorical Analysis Thesis Statement

1. Pertinent Information

rhetorical situation

     author -VP for Bioethics and Medical Sciences for Doctors Opposing Circumcisions --> emphatically invested in the topic, experienced

     context - circumcision remains a popular practice today, despite modern science which has a lot of evidence against it

     audience - Of the text: those still considering circumcision a viable option (religious practice) -- My audience: students in my field

rhetorical strategies

     word choice, reference to credible sources, counterarguments & refutation, statistics, organization/transitions, arrangement of text, tone

2. The above underlined words are what I will focus on in my essay. 

Thesis Statement #1

As a medically and religiously encouraged practice, author George Hill argues that society's blind approval of the tradition of circumcision has been the result of a dangerous misconstruction of medical facts. He emphasizes the ignorance in the public opinion through precisely placed sarcasm and an overall condescending tone. Though Hill appears credible in his vast knowledge of the debate, he critically impairs his argument by speaking so disparagingly to his audience. 

Thesis Statement #2

In his remonstrance of the modern practice of circumcision, George Hill uses a sarcastic and degrading writing style to question both the medical professionals' and parents' acceptance and open approval of the process. In his blunt description and protestation against the procedure, he infuses a sense of urgency concerning the age-old procedure; however, in doing so, he diminishes his credibility, appearing more anarchic than doctorly. 

I attempted to make both my thesis statements broad enough to allow for a lengthy analysis, yet still specific enough to be beneficial as an analysis. I believe I will have the most difficulty reaching the required length. The rhetorical driven papers I did in high school were all in class; as such, only two hand-written pages were really expected from us. I've never written such an extensive analysis and I hope my thesis's will allow me to do so.

Reflection

I read Isabel and Dylan's thesis statements. 

With my experience in rhetorical analysis (somewhat extensive, as I took a whole class on it in high school), I felt that some of the thesis statements were vague. This may, of course, be because this is after all only the drafting phase. Nonetheless, I find that rhetorical analyses and their effectiveness rely heavily upon a good intro and conclusion. As such, I think it's very important to solidify and start with a strong thesis statement. I found that my thesis statements were somewhat longer than both Isabel and Dylan's. I saw this as a necessity though because a 4 - 5 page paper cannot be based off a single thesis sentence. Overall, I think and hope I'm on the right road to successfully completing this project. 

Analyzing My Audience

In the following post, I will be considering the intended audience of my article by answering the questions in "Identifying Your Audience" from the Student's Guide reading.

phegenbart. "Theater Seating" 10/6/15 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License.

Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs and assumptions?

I, specifically, am writing for new students in my field who are struggling to understand how to construct an argument in said field.

The author's purposes/intended audience, however, is for anyone who can be classified as being "ignorant" of the case against circumcision. More specifically, parents, society and doctors still following the practice of circumcision. This audience's assumptions (perceived by the author to be mislead) are that the practice of circumcision is a beneficial, safe practice to perform on neonates. 

What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

Though our audience consists of new students, I don't believe this is what this question refers to. I don't care how my audience will react to the issue.

The author claims that the audience will attempt to ignore the "reality" of circumcision, as their egos are wounded by having been deceived, or even, having had circumcisions themselves. I will need to include this possible viewpoint, and the way the author elicits it within my rhetorical analysis of the article. 

What will they want to know?

The audience (both my audience and the author's intended audience) will want to know the credentials of the author: Why exactly he can be respected/believed in the accusations he is making against such a universally accepted practice. Also along this note, they will also want to know what encouraged to author to speak so emphatically against the practice: A specific event? A prolonged series of events?

How might they react to my argument?

I will be analyzing the article, not supporting or rejecting the argument. My goal, as stated in the Project 2 Guide, is to portray how someone in my field might construct an argument. As such, I'm hoping my "audience" finds itself well-informed. 

How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

I am trying to relate to my audience as a fellow "colleague" so to speak, while still remaining detached from the argument - avoiding a writing style similar to debate. I will be relating the information in a formal, intellectual way, as fits the genre (essay). I will connect with my audience by appearing as a knowledgeable figure. 

Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

I will have to write in a way that portrays me as being well-versed in my field and the subject of the article. This will involve correct medical vocabulary, accurate depictions of medical procedures, and overall an intelligent understanding of the article and the topic it covers.

Reflection

I saw very different methods/approaches to answering the questions in the two posts I read. 

In Jayni's post, I saw a lot of similarities to my own. We both answered the questions considering that our ultimate audience is a group of students, struggling to understand how to construct an argument in our fields. Our answers, apart from the specific facts associated with each of our articles were much the same.

I saw the exact opposite in Isabel's post. She viewed the audience as the people who are generally interested in her field. Her descriptions were very informative about those specific people. Ultimately, I think both methods of answering will be helpful in composing our essay.  

Cluster of The Case Against Circumcision

In the following post, I will be using an invention method known as clustering to organize the rhetorical strategy and situation of my article. The site I used for my cluster is known as Popplet.

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'The case against circumcision' cluster" 10/5/15 via Popplet.

In my cluster I attempted to consolidate the information which we have been discussing in our past few blogposts. I provided the key points of each subcategory of information to give a general conceptual understanding of my article and the way it is constructed. The colors are meant to represent different subtypes of information.

Additionally, I'm sorry if it shows up a little strange on any computers. In order to make everything readable, I had to set the photo to the largest setting, which then overlaps with my side-bar.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in The Case Against Circumcision

In the following post, I will be analyzing the rhetorical strategy of my article, utilizing the descriptions provided in the Student's Guide textbook. 

Jordan, Brett. "Rhetorical" 7/8/2011 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

Appeals to Credibility or Character

Which items on the bulleted list (ethos) can you recognize in your text?

References to credible sources 

Word choice

Tone

Information about the author's expertise 

Acknowledgments of counterarguments and refutations to those arguments

How and why would the author use these strategies?

These strategies individually and jointly were effective in achieving what appears to have been his ultimate goal. Ultimately, he endowed a sense of shame unto readers who had since been ignorant of the points he laid out against circumcision. His use of the strategies mentioned above allowed him to intelligently though still slightly accusingly state his thesis.

How do these strategies affect the audience's perception of the author's credibility and character?

These strategies label the author as an intelligent source for the argument. His reference to sources and his overall scholarly voice reduce any possibility the audience can have as to his reliability. The first sentence of the article reads, "In 2004, 57% of boys born in the United States received a medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision at great cost before leaving the maternity hospital [1], although there are no medical indications for this amputative operation [2,3]." He cites his accusations back to academic sources while still providing effective statistical information.

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text's overall message?

These strategies improve the effectiveness of the text's message. The author with his word choice, tone, etc. subtly accuses the audience of being stupidly ignorant.  

Does the author seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?

He does not have any bias associated with personal experience. He has a very strong opinion on the case of circumcision, but all the facts he presents are logical. His profession and history do nothing to suggest a reason as to why he is so invested in the movement. 

Appeals to Emotion 

Which items on the bulleted list (pathos) can you recognize in your text?

Shocking statistics

Tone of voice

What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?

The author is attempting to shame the audience into realizing they had previously blindly following the tradition of circumcision. He himself is not emotional at all in the article, though his main purpose is to evoke guilt.

What is the actual result?

I believe that the author was successful in making the audience feel guilty and uninformed. There was no room for them to feel angry at his accusatory tone because, at the core of the problem, is the well-being of their child/someone important to them. 

Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

These emotions are very effective in this rhetorical situation. The author is attempting to raise awareness about the disadvantages of neonatal circumcision. To do so, he had to target the public. The poignant message that these parents could be hurting their children by having them circumcised is definitely an effective strategy.

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author or the logic of the text?

The emotional appeals may affect the credibility of the author by lessening his humanism. He appears to have no sympathy for the parents, instead accusing them of being foolish enough to blindly follow a tradition they know little about. This however, does not affect the logic of the text negatively; rather, instead, benefits the text's logic.

Appeals to Logic

Which items on the bulleted list (logos) can you recognize in your text?

Statistics

Effective organization of sentences, paragraphs, ideas, images, etc. 

Clear transitions between sections of text

Arrangement of text for sequence

What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?

The author wants there to be no doubts about the risks of circumcision. He answers all questions anyone could have by employing the logos bulleted items. He states, "Alleged advantages rest on claimed, but unproved, prophylactic prevention of disease later in life. Complications and risks, however, are clear and immediate." He fully supports this claim with an abundance of statistics.

What is the actual result?

Though the author was definitely successful in producing such results, there is also the possibility that he "scared" his audience. He presents the information in such a debilitating, pessimistic view, that instead of informing the audience, he may have only stressed them out. 

Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

They can be considered both effective and ineffective. As mentioned above, he provided enough information to credibly question the ethics and health benefits of circumcision in neonates; however, he may also have scared the parents rather than strictly informing them. 

Reflection

Reading Jayni and Jessica's posts of their articles' rhetorical situations, I very quickly realized that the rhetorical strategies of an article differ widely depending on the field they cover. Jessica's post was architectural and Jayni's was science based (like mine). In Jayni's post, I found that much of the strategies and their purposes that she identified were much like mine. This was the exact opposite of Jessica's analysis. 

I do believe that I adequately analyzed my article. One possible improvement could be the incorporation of quotes. However, as much of my article consists of statistics, I would have to be very selective and take more time to consider which ones to include. I still maintain what I believe was my author's message and associated strategies. 

Analyzing Message in The Case Against Circumcision

In the following post, I will be analyzing the message and purpose of my article, utilizing the Student's Guide textbook.

ClkerFreeVectorImages. "Envelope letter" 10/2/2012 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License. 

Message and Purpose 

Bullets most relevant to the goal of my text's author:

Respond to a particular occasion or text

       The author is responding to the continued practice of circumcision in neonatal males. In other words, he is responding to the occasion of circumcision in society. 

Inform the reader about a topic that is often misunderstood

       The author argues against circumcision by pointing out that parents are generally uninformed about the possible risks and disadvantages of circumcisions, because they have been led to believe there are only advantages. After pointing out this misconception, he provides detailed information about said risks. 

Advocate for a change
       The author's purpose is clearly advocating for a change. He doesn't accuse society of ignorance to hurt their feelings. He does so to urge people to inform themselves so they can intelligently decide for or against circumcision. This bullet is most relevant to my article, as its purpose as a whole is to advocate for a change.

Bullets least relevant to the goal of my text's author:

Analyze, synthesize, or interpret

       The goal of this text was far from analytical. The author presented his argument in a less-than-formal way that synthesizing would imply. His tone approaches condescending as he expresses his blatant disapproval of society's ignorance. 

 Reflect on a topic

       The author is not reflecting about the topic of circumcision, he is rallying against it. Reflecting, in my opinion, implies a more rounded view of a topic (meaning you're looking at both the pros and cons). This article does not support circumcision in the slightest.

Nuances and Layers

I honestly don't think there's anything too complex about my article. The author has a very strong opinion against a controversial topic, and makes that opinion known in the article. He is very confident in all of his assertions and doesn't express any nuances in his argument. His intentions are clear.