Victory Lap!

As this course ends, my summer internship is ending concurrently. I am free! I have a little more than a week before my fall semester starts. My friends and I are hiking to Havasu Falls (pictured below) in the Grand Canyon. It will be a great way to finish off the summer and celebrate my accomplishments

I hope all my classmates and professors enjoy their life without this course. Thanks for all the help and BEAR DOWN!

Tahir, Roshaan. "Soothing Waterfall Wallpaper" 02/03/2014 via Flickr
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                               

A Letter to My Professor and My Peers

Dear Professor Bottai and My Classmates,

When my summer started, it would be an understatement to say I was intimidated by what was on my plate. I had just been hired for an internship with Sandia National Labs; I would be working full-time in a new town. I also needed to enroll in a summer english class. Needless to say, my plate was going to be quite full.

What intimidated me most about my summer was this english class. I could handle a full work week, but I’ve never been fond of writing. Writing has always been a stressful process for me. I associate the subject with long nights in front of my computer and digging through sources to find support for my claims. All this stress, however, did not come from writing itself; it came from my approach.

I’ve always been what Winet et al. would describe as a heavy reviser as well as a procrastinator (47). In my first blog post on my writing style I wrote, “Often when I write my paper, I will get my thoughts onto the page fairly early. However, because I don't enjoy revising my work, I tend to push the revision step (which is quite important) as far into the future as possible.” I went on to describe how stressful this process is. I become anxious as I write because I have put little planning into my work before putting pen to paper.

I developed this writing style in high school. I took both Advanced Placement english classes, which, to this day, were the most challenging english classes I’ve taken. I contend (with universal agreement from my classmates at the time) that my teacher for these classes (the same lady for both) treated us as graduate students. The first month with her was called boot camp, a tribute to the military practice to get new recruits in shape. We wrote multiple essays each week (I can not tell you how many as I have blocked those weeks from my memory). By the end of the course my portfolio resembled a phone book more than a collection of my work.

This intense workload forced me into becoming a heavy reviser and also improved my procrastination skills. The only reasonable way to complete all the work was to limit planning time. I wrote quickly and read through my work a few times to prevent major mistakes. This made writing a full length essay possible in one night, even with homework for my other six classes.

This heavy writing load was a very stressful experience. I learned how to express my ideas quickly and concisely, but this style of writing was lacking real world applicability. Sure, in various careers quick composition can be valuable, but in the “real world” we are given more time for long pieces of writing. These classes failed to emphasize a part of writing that is quite important: planning.

After high school English, the only real skill I had gained was the ability to write a mediocre essay on queue. I was actually more comfortable with timed writings since I knew I was expected to put less planning into my work. I simply  did not know how to plan for a paper. English 109H was invaluable to my growth as a writer as it showed me what the planning stages should look like and some good questions to ask myself along the way.

The first lesson I learned was how to properly find a topic and figure out my stance. We were encouraged to search for information about a controversy in our field.  Only once I was well versed did I choose my sources and the position I would take. For example, the planning stages of our first project had us finding, properly citing, and analyzing ten sources for an annotated bibliography. I can’t tell you the last time I used that many sources for a paper. I am used to forming an argument in my head (independent of the evidence I have to support it) and then taking off writing. I have no concern for the support for my claims and this often would result in a poorly formed argument.

Since we started by extensive research before writing, my arguments and ideas benefitted immensely. I no longer was forced to scour the internet for information that could support my ideas. When I was describing my process, I wrote, “With no concrete plan behind my work, I often fear that my argument would lead me to a dead end in terms of supporting evidence.” I had an idea of what to say, but no evidence. This was a fatal flaw in my writing process, but this class has shown me the correct order of the pre-composition stages. I will no longer plunge directly into composition, but will form my argument from the texts I find.

After the research stage came analysis of the rhetorical situation. This is something I was quite unfamiliar with. In past composition classes I wrote for the teacher. I failed to actually analyze what the purpose of my paper was, the context surrounding my issue, and who my audience could be (besides the person grading my piece). This class’s emphasis on understanding the rhetorical situation changed my approach to each project. I learned some expository questions I could ask myself to give me an idea of how to frame my writing. For project three the rhetorical situation was analyzed using three separate blog posts: Analyzing Context, Analyzing Purpose, and Audience and Genre. In these posts I learned some valuable questions I can ask myself from Writing Public Lives such as “What are some plausible reactions to you piece?” (Minnix and Nowotny-Young 326) or “What are the dominating schools of thought?” (Minnix and Nowotny-Young 340). These questions helped my writing process and gave me a good idea of how to shape my tone and vocabulary. I had never considered the situation when composing, but I realized that it removes much of the ambiguity from my writing process.

The next step of the planning phase was to consider the genre I was writing in. Normally, an english class is limited to a select few genres. Essays seem to be the only thing I ever wrote in high school. This class demonstrated how to write in multiple genres, including typical essay style. Furthermore, the course offered information on how to determine the conventions of a certain genre, even if I was unfamiliar with it. In my post entitled QRGs: The Genre I responded to a variety of questions posed about some sample QRGs. The questions, such as “What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?”, could be extended to any new genre. This internal dialogue will be especially useful as I start to make my first explorations into the field of scientific writing. There are a vast amount of specialized conventions that go into a scientific paper and the lens I was given by this class will allow me to identify those details and implement them as I create my first scientific works. The analysis of genre has made me a more adaptable writer, no longer limited to standard, boring essay formats.

The combination of all these planning steps made the outlining stage so easy. By the time I had reached this step I already had a very clear idea of what my piece would look like. My outlines flowed easily and I mapped out my papers quickly. After that it was only a matter of filling in the connections between my points and Voila!, my draft was complete. The best part was that my revisions were pain free. As I’ve mentioned, I don’t like revising very much, and planning extensively made my need for revisions minimal. The process overall was very low stress.

I also have a few words for all my classmates. Although I never met any of you in person, I have a good idea of your personalities and interests from your writing, which makes me feel like I know you well. I am grateful for all the feedback I received on my work. This class consisted of students from a variety of different backgrounds and from different age groups, so the information I learned from your work was diverse and interesting. I am glad to have survived with you who stuck it out.

This class, while not the most challenging composition course I have taken, was every helpful in showing me techniques to become a heavy planner. As I said in my first blog post, I’d like to be one as it is low-stress and makes that writing more manageable. My field, being a science discipline, also requires heavy planning. It is impossible to write a coherent scientific article without properly researching and planning your writing first. I am thankful to Professor Bottai for showing me what proper planning looks like and I am sure to utilize the techniques show to me this summer in my future studies.

Sincerely,

Mark Mellott

Reflection on Open Letter Draft

I reviewed the drafts written by Jason and Brandon.

Responses to the bullet list on p. 60 of Students Guide

• Who specifically is going to be reading this [letter]?

This letter is meant for my classmates and professor of this English class.

• What biases might my readers have? Am I respecting their opinions while also achieving my purpose? 

My readers have their own interpretation and experience with this class. They may not have had the same ideas and approach to this class, but my explanation gives the background behind my experience so that my readers can understand why I had the experience that I did.

• What are their values and expectations?

Seeing that my peers (and most certainly my professor) have all read the assignment prompt, they are likely expecting a semi-formal letter that tells my writing story. They are also expecting me to quote information from our course readings, my own work, etc.

• How much information do I need to give my audience?

I need to give a detailed story about my own writing history; however, in terms of information about the different assignments I've completed, I can keep my elaboration minimal since my audience already has a good idea about this content.

• What kind of language is suitable for this audience?

The purpose of this letter is to reflect on the course in a conversational, semi-formal tone. My language should not be to complex; it should reflect the kind of voice I'd like to display when speaking to my professor or peers. 

• What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently throughout my draft?

As I mentioned above, my tone is semi-formal. I maintain this tone for most of my draft. Some of the later paragraphs of my letter do get a little too formal, so I will try to assuage this issue. 

Project 4

For my peer reviewers:

I like the flow of the first half of my letter. This half is concerned with my "writing story." However, the second half of the letter seems to be a bit choppy and unnatural. I also think it could use some more evidence. Please comment where you think it sounds boring/choppy/awkward. Also be sure to let me know if there is a spot where some more evidence would support what I am saying.

To read and comment on my draft click here.

Reflecting On My Writing Experiences

1. My assumptions and ideas about writing before taking your first-year composition course:

Coming into this class, I had a good idea of what effective writing should sound like. I knew my arguments had to be clear and well supported. After taking AP Literature and AP Language in high school I was afraid that this class would not teach me anything new.

2. The most important lessons you have learned as both a reader and a writer as a result of taking your first-year composition course.

One of the most important lessons I learned was how to research properly and some of the best platforms for doing research. I had never heard of Web Of Science before, but it proved to be extrememly helpful for writing scientific papers.

The second lesson I learned was how to properly prepare for a paper. This was something I was deficient in. I normally would just start writing for other classes. The blog posts building up to each project showed me how to prepare properly and what sort of questions to ask myself when deciding what to write.

3. The way you brain stormed, narrowed down topics, and worked on thesis statements.

For this course I focused on topics that I cared about (Fracking) or that were particularly relevant to me (nuclear waste repository). This gave me a great place to start and made the brain storming process easier as I already was well-educated on the topics I chose. It also made writing a thesis easy for the same reason.

4.The peer-review process, including what you offered and what you received

As always, peer review is very helpful. It is nice to see your paper through someone else. Most of the feed back I received helped me make difficult decisions, such as what I should include in my projects. For example, for Project 3 I asked my reviewers to consider if I needed more images. My reviewers answered yes and this resulted in a higher quality project.

I enjoyed looking at others' drafts through the lenses of the different clarity and punctuation topics we reviewed. This was a great way to recognize errors while simultaneously helping my classmate.

5. Individual or small group conferences with your instructors

I did not have any small group conferences with my instructor, but I did have some email correspondence with him. My questions ranged in topic, but mostly were concerned with different ways of formatting my project. One particular instance I communicated with my professor on how to properly cite a valuable source. He provided me with some valuable insight on how to cite author-less pieces that I was very grateful to receive.

6. The discussions you had about your paper with people who were not in your class.

For my two projects concerning the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, I discussed my content with the people I work with. I am currently employed as an intern with Sandia National Labs with a division that does research for the WIPP. The scientists I spoke with gave me first hand information about WIPP and many valuable pieces of background information that helped me create my projects.

7. How I approached the revision process for each eassay.

My revision process was minimal since I put a lot of planning into each of my projects. The majority of my time spent on revisions was directed at improving the grammar, punctuation, and clarity of my projects.

8. My understanding of reading and writing in different genres

I learned a bit about the conventions one genre that I was unfamiliar with: the Quick Reference Guide. The other two genres (essay and visual presentation) were quite familiar to me before coming into this class. The conventions of quick reference guides were valuable to learn and relevant since they showed me how to provide information in a concise and approachable format.

9.What would you do differently if you were to take your first-year composition courses again?

I would spend more time with the readings that were assigned. Most of the time I would skim through the assigned chapters, but I think there is some very valuable information to be gained from the details of these passages.

10. How college writing fits into your life now and how it will fit into your major and future career.

I now have a solid understanding of the preparation that goes into writing a college paper. For my major, often the research step is the hardest part. This class has been very useful since it gave me some very valuable tools for doing research quickly and efficiently.

11.What did you learn from the semester as a whole?

I learned that writing a paper can be broken down into manageable steps that makes my writing clearer and the process less stressful.

12. Did the choices you made, or writing experiences you had, reinforce something you already knew about yourself or about your writing?

It reinforced the idea that I really don't like to revise my work. This class was helpful in that the extensive planning made the revision step a lot quicker than it normally is.

13. If you did not gain as much from a particular project as you had hoped, what are the possible reasons for that and what might you do differently the next time?

I felt that each project offered me a particular insight that was beneficial.

14. Think about the course objectives listed on your syllabus as you consider your success in the class. What course objective did you meet? What objectives are you still working on?

I think I have met all the goals listed. I've learned about rhetorical awareness, critical thinking and composition, the reflection process, and the conventions of different genres. Of course, the last one can always be expanded upon since there are a variety of different genres with which I am not familiar yet.

Reflecting On Project 3

What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
My main concern for my revisions was the visual appearance of the presentation. Since it is an animated presentation, I wanted to make sure it was visually aesthetic and that the images supplemented the written information on each of the slides.

How did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
My thesis was reconsidered by making sure it could refute any counter arguments. I made my organization follow the structure laid out by my thesis so any changes I made to my thesis were reflected by corresponding organizational changes.

What led you to these changes?
My main concern was that my argument answered questions about the subject while simultaneously refuting any counter arguments. My changes were a reflection of this concern.

How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
Seeing that my changes were concerned with informing my audience, I believe they aided and supplemented my credibility as an author.

How will these changes better address the audience?
The goal of my changes, especially the visual aides, was to better engage my audience with understandable information presented in an aesthetic fashion. This helps my audience understand my position and keeps them interested in the information.

How did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
Since this was a visual presentation, most of my slides were structured with bullets of information for ease of reading. I reconsidered my structure and style by assuring that each bullet provided clear, concise information relating to the purpose of each slide.

How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
These changes will make my supporting evidence and my position as a whole much more understandable. The information is presented clearly and allows the audience to gain necessary knowledge quickly.

Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you were writing?
For the most part, I did not. However, I did choose to include a conclusion slide that differed in style from typical examples from my genre. I included a long paragraph in this slide rather than a bullet list. The purpose of this divergence was to give my professor a solid conclusion. In reality, the content of the slide would be shorter and my verbal presentation would sound more like the paragraph I included on this slide.

Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
It shows me that I did not have to make any major changes to my project. I had a good idea of what the project was going to look like before I even started. I have become more of a heavy planner over the course of this class, and that is reflected  by the small amount of revisions that I have needed to do.

Revisiting My Writing Process

My writing style was much different during this course than it has been for previous classes. In my first post, "My Writing Process," I described myself as a procrastinator and a heavy reviser. After taking this course, I believe that is due to the typical structure of my other courses. That is not to say that it is my professor/teacher's fault for my writing style, just that the structure of this course was better suited for me.

What helped me about this course was that the deadlines were frequent and explicit in their instructions. Whats more, each task for the deadlines was a sort of preparation for the upcoming project. The project was broken down into several different easy to manage steps: research, planning, drafting, revising, reflecting. This is unlike most courses where the ultimate deadline is given many days in advance, allowing the student to execute each step at their pleasing. This typical format is not effective for me. I benefiitted from having some instruction on how to do each step of the writing process. It made the task much less daunting and once it came time for drafting, I already had a clear idea of what to write.

In the future, I plan on implementing a similar style of writing as the one Professor Bottai facilitated us to do. His course showed me what each step looks like, making the writing process pain free and manageable. I will move forward with the techniques he has shown me so that I can be a heavy planner rather than a procrastinating heavy reviser. This is my preferred method of writing as it is low-stress and yields a more coherent piece.

Project 3

To view my completed project 3, click here.

Punctuation, Part 2

The Colon:

The idea of a colon is to use it directly after an independent clause to bring attention to a list, explanation, quote, or appositive. I was unaware that colons are only to be used after a colon. This is a good lesson on when to properly use this punctuation. It will be especially useful for quotations.

The Apostrophe:

I had a good understanding of when and when not to use an apostrophe. It was helpful to know that you should not use apostrophes to create the plural of abbreviations and letters. This is a common mistake and I will be sure to avoid it in the future.

End Punctuation:

The period is the simplest of the punctuation marks that I have read about. Its use is simple and I have a good understanding of it. I also understand the use of exclamation points and question marks very well. The section provided a good reminder that you should not use periods in abbreviations (e.g. U.S.A.).


After reviewing my project 3 draft for the above punctuation, I found no errors relating to these topics. My use of periods was satisfactory in all cases: "Due to a small design flaw in the ventilation system, a small leakage occurred." In this case I properly employed the period to end my sentence.

I also did not use periods to separate letters in an abbreviation. My presentation is filled with many abbreviations such as, "Not all the contamination flowed through the HEPA filters."
For HEPA I did not include periods as was suggested by Rules for Writers.

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

"The Reflection of Mount Hood in Mirror Lake" via Wikipedia
Public Domain Dedication License

I had the opportunity to peer review Nicole and Jason's drafts.

Now answering the questions from WPL p. 509

1. What was the purpose and audience of your original paper? How successfully did it acheive that purpose and reach that audience?

The goal of my paper was to inform the community near the WIPP about how the WIPP is still safe, despite the recent accident that occurred. Throughout my project I stayed focused on this idea and I believe I was able to successfully achieve that goal. I kept my formatting interesting and approachable so that my intended audience could easily understand the information and my position/

2. Why are you revising this project?

The project needs to be a little more engaging. It currently provides some interesting information and maps out my point effectively, but it lacks the polished and eye-catching appeal of a quality visual presentation.

3. Whom are you revising for?

I'm revising this for my audience so that they can better understand my information. Additionally, I am revising my project to engage my audience.

4. How will the following aspects of your project change?

• Length: The presentation will become slightly longer. I intend to add a conclusion so that will extend it by a slide. The addition of photos will also add to the length.
• Format: The format will remain largely unchanged except for the addition of some visuals.
• Appearance: The largest changes are going to come here. I want to add some visual representations (pictures, plots, etc) to supplement the written information.
• Use of Evidence: I used sufficient amount of evidence from reliable sources. I don't plan on adding any more.
• Introduction and Conclusion: I believe my introduction is strong. I am lacking a conclusion, however. I plan on summarizing my position and points with a concluding slide for my presentation.
• Structure of my argument: At the moment I am quite pleased with the structure of my argument.
• Depth of your argument: I am also quite pleased with the depth of my argument as well.

Punctuation, Part 1

Topic 1: The Comma

I have been trying to work on my use of commas for quite a while. I find the rules behind them to be quite nebulous so this section was quite helpful. I already have a good idea of how to use commas, but that understanding is based on my own feeling of how a sentence sounds. One thing I often fail to do is place a comma after an introductory phrase. Placing commas in those types of sentences often felt unnatural, but now I understand why they are necessary to organize my writing and communicate ideas clearly.

Topic 2: Semicolon

This topic was interesting to me because in some of my recent writings I have been trying to incorporate the semicolon more and more. I already knew that it links two independent clauses, but wanted to make sure my uses were correct grammatically. This section confirmed my understanding of semicolons and also reminded me of some of the other uses of semicolons; in particular,  the section on the use of a semicolon when formatting a list with elements that have commas already was a helpful reminder of this convention.

Topic 3: Quotation Marks

Quotation marks are not particularly difficult idea to me and their rules are not as complex as the other two topics; however, their apparent lack of difficulty is exactly why I wanted to read this section. I thought that maybe there would be some information about quotations that I may not know yet. Mostly I already had a strong understanding of the contents of this section. I did, however, learn something about using block quotes. It was a good reminder that whenever quoting something that goes longer than four lines, it is necessary to create a block quote in your text.

Reflection:

After the peer review process, I learned and was reminded about some important punctuation ideas. From Jason's, I learned that it is quite easy to start a sentence as a dependent clause, but then get lost in the words and have it end as an independent clause. This then allowed him to use a semicolon incorrectly to link an independent clause: "Though there are instances of veteran jockeys, often times highly publicized, appearing to abuse the crop; it is often the newer jockeys that are being penalized for misuse." I see why this semicolon was used, but it is used incorrectly. It is an important lesson on how to properly use this punctuation.

Nicole's draft reminded me of a use of quotation marks. She writes, "Computers at NASA and the U.S. Energy Department were attacked by a “WANK” worm, “Worms Against Nuclear Killers.” It was the second worm of its kind, but the first worm that held a political agenda." Here she used the quotations to document the unusual use of a word. In this case "WANK" is quite unusual in this sentence, so it was effective for her to place this term in quotations to denote the word's usage as unusual in this context. This is a good lesson on one of the many uses of quotation marks.

Draft of Public Argument

My public argument is in the form of a prezi. I like the visual appearance of the presentation, but I think it could use a little more substance. Some images would probably be helpful, but I'm not sure what sort of pictures would hellp my audience. As you read each slide, be sure to comment on what you would like to see a picture of. For example, if I describe something that you think would be helpful to see, tell me. Also make sure my wording sounds okay and understandable. Finally, I'd like you to tell me if my argument was convincing enough. I let the facts speak for themselves, so let me know if I should be more explicit with my argument.

Also, it is important to note that Prezi does not allow commenting. So please provide comments on this draft on this blog post. Please refer to the slide in question when making a comment.

To view my draft click here.

Paraphrasing a Source

From the article "Nuclear Waste Solutions Seen in Desert Salt Beds"

Passage:

The process is deceptively simple: Plutonium waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory and a variety of defense projects is packed into holes bored into the walls of rooms carved from salt. At a rate of six inches a year, the salt closes in on the waste and encapsulates it for what engineers say will be millions of years.

Paraphrase:
 
Storing the nuclear waste relies on a basic idea. The radioactive material (consisting mostly of plutonium) comes from Los Alamos National Laboratory and from the creation of nuclear weapons. The waste is then filled into cavities drilled out of the salt walls of the repository. The basic idea is that the salt will "creep" in around the waste, sealing the hazardous materials for millions of years into the future.

Outlining My Public Argument

Introduction:

The introduction I plan on writing will most resemble the option Think About Your Situation. The reason for the recent debate is the accident that occurred last February and how it may be indicative of the safety of the WIPP. Also most of my evidence comes from the accident reports, so it would be logical to frame my introduction around the situation that has caused the debate to arise.

Body:

•  Supporting Argument: The radiological release was at a non-reportable level.
• Criticism: No radiological release should have occurred at all
• Topic sentence: Although the radiological release did introduce readioactive elements into the environment, the level of release was less than national standards for hazardous air pollutants.
• Evidence: Quote from Department of Energy accident report phase 1: "The radiological event that occurred on February 14 with the leakage past the isolation dampers was less than the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines for the public and below the limits established by the DOE and WIPP for site workers."
•  Supporting Argument: The WIPP has been modified to prevent a similar sort of release from happening in the future.
• Criticism: Why weren't these protective measures taken originally?
• Topic Sentence: Since the accident, the WIPP has been modified to be able to control any further releases from occurring.
• Evidence: Quote from WIPP Recovery plan: "On March 6, two ventilation system dampers that were known to have allowed a small amount of the radioactive material to bypass the HEPA filters were sealed with high-density foaming material."
• Supporting Argument: The workers exposed to radiation only received enough radiation as a typical chest x-ray
• Criticism: These workers should not have been exposed to any radiation at all
• Topic Sentence: Although a detectable amount of radiation was released to the environment, the exposure that the contaminated workers experienced was less than a typical chest x-ray.
• Evidence: Quote from WIPP Recovery plan: "Bioassay tests showed that 22 workers received internal contamination as a result of the release, each with a total lifetime exposure of less than 10 millirem over 50 years, which is equivalent to the exposure resulting from a chest x-ray." 

Conclusion:

I am choosing to use the Negative Consequences strategy to form my conclusion. Many people fail to realize that we need a place to store our nuclear waste. At the moment, it is being stored at local sites all across the country which is quite an environmental and health concern. We need a safe, secure place to store this waste. If we don't get continued support for the repository, then we may harm the environment and our people even more. 

Considering Types

My argument will most likely fit into the Position Argument type. The goal of this project is to formulate our own position on a public debate. This sounds quite similar to Writing Public Lives description of Position Arguments: "In this argument, you would defend a specific policy, position, or idea in a controversial debate. Instead of just repeating what one side in the debate has already said, you would develop your own defenses of this position." My goal is to no just repeat what others have said, but to synthesize information from my internship experiences with credible information to provide an in-depth and approachable argument that clearly explains my position. This is exactly what a position argument is.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

Responses to numbered and bulleted prompts in WPL p. 412-413

1. Audience

• Knowledge: It seems there a lot of misinformation about nuclear waste and nuclear waste in general. Mass media paints it in a very negative light. Most people get their information by general public opinion since it is not a widely explored topic.
• Values: My audience values safety and enivonmental well-being, which is what drives their position, no matter what side they are on.
• Standards of Argument: I think scientific research from reputable sources will be necessary. It is likely that this information will need to be translated as it is likely to contain some technical information and verbiage.
• Visual Elements: I think pictures are a good way to illustrate the extent of the repository.
• Purpose: My purpose is to convince my audience that we need to continue the operation of the WIPP facility.

2. Genre

• Function: The function of my genre (animated presentation) is to engage the audience and provide pertinent information in an easily accessible format.
• Setting/How could it be used: My presentation could be used to inform large audiences such as town hall meetings and other public forums about the issue.
• How might I use rhetorical appeals: Logos will be used in showing people that we have waste that needs to be stored. Ethos by referencing reliable information from the Department of Energy and reputable scientists. Pathos by showing the economic/community benefits that the repository brings.
• Visual Elements: The presentation will be visually stimulating with any data expressed on plots/graphs. This is to help the audience understand the information and keep them engaged.
• Style: The style of this presentation is conversational. I want the information to be presented in an understandable fashion with room for discussion and elaboration on the key points.

3.Responses/Actions

• Positive Support
• People recognize the necessity of the repository and trust the responsible parties to conduct the research and implementation safely.
• Negative Rebuttals
• People do not have trust in the responsible parties after the recent accidents. This rebuttal is the most important, but I think after people learn about the specifics of the accident, this argument can be discredited.
• Chain of Action
• The goal is that people will take community action by voting and informing others about the subject if they support my position.

Analyzing Context

Responses to the prompts/questions in WPL p. 340

1. There are two dominating schools of thought on this debate. One side recognizes that the US has and has had the most active nuclear program in the world. This program has created a waste that must be dealt with properly. The other school of thought is that nuclear waste repositories are dangerous and can harm the environment and public health, so they must not be used/a different option must be found.
2. The main point of contention is that the repositories are not safe. The recent accidents that happened in the repository seem to support this position. However, supporters of the continuation of WIPP's use argue that the incident was minor and not representative of WIPP's future.
3. Both groups agree that environmental and public safety are the main concerns when finding a way to deal with nuclear waste.
4. There are no clear trends in ideological beliefs. People of various backgrounds support both sides of the issue.
5. Both sides have a similar approach as to what action they encourage. They would like people to voice their support/opposition via voting and other governmental responsibilities.
6. I think the perspective that a nuclear waste repository is absolutely the safest and securest way we have to store waste supports my argument. I share the belief that we need an operable repository. We have waste and we need to store it.
7. I think the perspective that WIPP is not safe based on the recent accidents is a fairly strong position. They have very valid concerns since the WIPP is projected to last 10,000 years, but only went less than ten before having a minor radiation leakage.

Analyzing Purpose

Responses to questions/prompts posed on pg 126 of WPL:

1. I would like my audience to first understand the necessity of a nuclear waste repository. As we saw with Yucca mountain many years ago, many people oppose the creation of the repository. There is a clear NIMBY mindset that people tend to get stuck in the moment they hear the word 'nuclear.' There is also this mentality that if you oppose a repository and it doesn't get built, then the US will stop creating nuclear waste. This is frankly untrue and we must have an operable and safe place to store our waste.

2. Plausible Reactions:

• People understand the necessity of a repository.
• They use the information I provide to help them make decisions while voting 
• They inform others about the need for a repository
• They are unconvinced of the need for a repository

Not plausible reactions:

• Everyone will support the repository
• Everyone will stop supporting the repository

3. Consequences:

• If people understand the necessity of a repository it might motivate them to support measures that help continue the operation of WIPP. This goes for all the positive reactions.

4. The audience that this subject is most pertinent to is the community of Carlsbad, NM. They are the closest to the repository and thus its safe operation is their greatest concern. It is also the concern of many people across the country who are living near temporary storage locations. These people all want to see the waste dealt with safely and properly. These people are also the ones with the most influential say in the issue. They are not so likely to take visible action to support the repository. However, they will vehemently oppose the repository if they think it is unsafe/unnecessary, so the purpose of my piece will be to prevent this opposition.

Audience and Genre

The first major audience I think my piece would be relevant for is the community of Carlsbad, NM. Carlsbad is the town located closest to the WIPP. The people of Carlsbad are the people who potentially could be the most affected by the WIPP. A good place to address the people of Carlsbad would be through their newspaper, The Current-Argus. Another place where the content of my project could be communicated would be at a local town hall meeting. The town hall meetings are often used to communicate with concerned citizens of Carlsbad about the status of WIPP.

Examples of op-ed's in The Current-Argus:
Link 1.
Link 2.

Examples of Town Hall Meetings:
Link 1.
Link 2.

The second major group that my piece would affect would be law makers in Washington, D.C. It is difficult to say how to target these people. One way is by communicating directly with my representatives via a letter. Another way to target law makers is by getting my piece published in an opinion column in a prominent news paper such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc.

Examples of writing directly:
Link 1
Link 2

Examples of op-ed in prominent news papers:
Link 1
Link 2

Extended Annotated Bibliography

Narrowing My Focus

What happened with the most recent accident?
How did the recent accident happen?
How does WIPP work towards reopening?

The reason WIPP's operation has become a contentious issue in recent history is due to the accident that recently happened in WIPP. People were unsure of the extent of the accident and what really occurred, making them unsure of whether or not they supported WIPP. The above questions are focused on identifying what occurred with the accident and how it occurred, The question then addresses what we should pay attention to moving forward from the accident.

Questions About Controversy

For this module, I have chosen the debate on whether or not the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant should continue operation.

Questions:

WHO:
Who is doing research for WIPP?
Who was responsible for the most recent accident?
Who is in favor of WIPP?
Who is not in favor of WIPP?
Who is in charge of making sure the WIPP is safe?

WHAT:
What, specifically, is stored in WIPP?
What happened with the most recent accident?
What are the negative consequences of WIPP?
What are the positive consequences?
What can people do to help WIPP?

WHEN:
When did WIPP open?
When did the most recent accident occur?
When will WIPP start accepting waste again?
When was the waste created?
When is WIPP certified to last until?

WHERE:
Where is WIPP located?
Where else could a repository be located/
Where does the waste come from?
Where do people live in relation to WIPP?
Where are major decisions about WIPP made?


HOW:
How does WIPP work towards reopening?
How are we sure that WIPP is safe?
How does the EPA play a role?
How did the recent accident happen?
How is the community affected?

Reflection on Project 2

What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
The most major revisions from one draft to another was wording. I try to have my first draft look as much like my final draft as possible. That means that my global reorganizations are generally minimal. For this particular project, I had no global revisions other than a slight tweaking of my thesis.

How did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
My thesis really had to be clear and lay out a clear plan. Since I had this in mind for my first draft, I really just made sure that the layout of my paper followed the map that my thesis created. I reconsidered my thesis by making sure it sounded coherent and answered the question of "so what?"

What led you to these changes?
The driving factor behind these changes was making sure that the thesis answered the bigger questions, rather than just covering the surface details,

How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
I think these changes positively affect my credibility since I made changes that improved the purpose of my writing.

How will these changes better address the audience?
These changes help the audience understand why I am writing the paper and especially why they are reading the paper.

How did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I mainly focused on how my sentence structure flowed. I wanted my essay to read clearly and fluidly. My changes were a reflection of this goal.

How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
These changes make my writing clearer and easier to read. This allows my audience to understand what they are reading and what the purpose of writing is.

Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you were writing?
I thought I had a pretty clear idea of what my essay was supposed to look like. I did choose to include moer outside information that I had originally intended to give my writing a little more credibility.

Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
I realized that I like to plan my essay before jumping in. My goal is to create as complete of a draft as I can on my first attempt. This makes the revision process easier and allows me to work on how the essay sounds, as this is an area that I tend to struggle in. I am good at mapping out ideas, I just need to take my time in clearly communicating those ideas.

Project 2

To view my final draft of project 2, click here.

Clarity, pt. 2

The four sections I read relating to clarity this time around were "Active Verbs," "Parallel Ideas," "Needed Words," and "Variety."

I've always been told by English teachers to avoid the passive voice. The preceding sentence is an example of this passive voice, but I think it is appropriate since I am trying to emphasize that I have always been told to avoid the passive voice. This section on active verbs was helpful because it showed me when passive verb structures are appropriate. After reviewing my project 2, I found this example: "The ocean dried, depositing a large bed of salt in the earth. The salt turned out to be a perfect place to have a nuclear repository, which was dubbed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)." This sentence is already written in the active voice, but I wanted to emphasize how a salt bed was deposited since that is the relevant information presented in this sentence. To do this, I changed the sentence to read, "A large bed of salt was deposited when this ocean dried. This bed turned out to be a perfect place to have a nuclear repository, which was dubbed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)." 

The section on parallel ideas was helpful. However, I found that I am already quite aware of parallel structures. I have noticed the awkwardness that is created when parallelism is not employed. As such my essay did not include any examples where parallelism was not used.

The section on needed words was quite intuitive. Despite its seemingly simple nature, though, this section was very helpful in letting me analyze my paper for any errors that arose as a result of missing words. For example, I found this sentence in my introduction: "The issue with nuclear energy and the manufacture of nuclear weapons creates waste." This sentence is unclear and the way it is written makes it sound like the issue creates waste rather than my intended meaning that the issue is that the weapons and power plants create waste. I revised this sentence to read, "The issue with nuclear power plants and the creation of nuclear weapons is that they create waste"

The last section I read was on variety. This is a subject that I am already very conscious of. I do not like when my sentence structures become too similar. Although I do commonly fall into a few repetitive structures, I often attempt to change these upon revision. As such, I found my paper to have satisfactory variation after my first revision.

Revised Conclusion

What was really missing from my old conclusion was the most important part, the "So what?" With my new conclusion, I took extra care addressing this question because I think it is especially important for this subject.

New Conclusion:

Wald is able to communicate a very important idea in this article. Without becoming too technical and potentially going over the heads of his audience, he describes how the WIPP is a safe place to store nuclear waste and what makes the facility particularly fit for such an application. His work in advocating for the WIPP is important since the purpose of the WIPP itself is quite important. Whether the US's citizens like it or not, we have produced an abundance of nuclear waste with our extremely active defense program and energy initiatives. This isn't a question of should we store this nuclear waste, it is a question of where can we store this waste. We need a place to safely sequester this material and the WIPP is the best option there is. Wald communicates this using a credible and logical argument that keeps a serious, professional tone. His writing is invaluable in its approachable nature and the consequence of his topic.

Old conclusion:

Wald’s article is a great example of how non-technical writers can document what is going on in science fields. They are essential to our society’s progress since they are able to create working explanations for the complex, involved work being done in laboratories and in the field. While this article may seem non-argumentative, it actually hides a considerate amount of persuasion, cleverly tied into the formatting and the included details. Wald provides extensive coverage of the benefits of the WIPP and the many details that can make it successful. He does include brief coverage of the opposition to WIPP and fails to critique the arguments of this half of the controversy, but he does refute their claims in a non-descript way. The opposition’s side of the controversy is covered in the penultimate paragraph of the article. It is quickly followed up, however, by documenting how the WIPP will be able to grow in the future. This effectively discredits the opposition and makes Wald’s supportive position a little clearer.

Revised Introduction

After reading the tips in Student Guide,  I actually thought my introduction did a good job as it was. The new introduction is very similar to the old one, but I decided to re-word a few parts to make the information clearer. I also framed the issue a little differently so that it fit with the rest of my analysis. 

New version:

Man Americans are unaware of the necessity of a nuclear waste repository. Many people can remember the failures of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. That project was met with huge opposition by the people of Nevada. But why did they oppose it? Were they afraid that the facility would endanger the health of nearby citizens? Or did they think that by opposing the repository, the waste wouldn't be created in the first place? Both of these fears are ill-founded, since extensive research has gone into ensuring the former does not occur. Furthermore, the US already has created lots of its nuclear waste, some of it dating back more than fifty years. This waste, without a facility, is stored above ground at temporary locations, where it has a much higher potential to contaminate the environment. Since Yucca mountain, the US created the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico. This new plant, like its predecessor, was met with a lot of opposition. The scientific community, however, needed to face this opposition with articles and other writings that documented why the WIPP is a safe place to store this waste.  One such piece comes from New York Time’s writer Matthew Wald. In his article, “Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds,” he constructs a supported argument  in favor of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico. He accomplishes this by employing effective use of appeals to credibility and logic that are appropriate for his general, non-technical audience. 

Old version:

The US has been at the forefront of nuclear energy and weaponry since the inception of this specific science. Most people remember the Manhattan project and how it started the world’s first nuclear weapons protocol. The issue with nuclear energy and the creation of nuclear weapons creates waste. Nuclear waste is hazardous to our health and as such it must be dealt with properly. So far, what humans have decided to do with this waste is bury it underground in what are called repositories. The next issue, though, is where to locate these repositories. Years ago, a repository called Yucca mountain in Nevada opened up. It has since been shut down due to a huge base of opposition that formed in that state. After Yucca mountain’s use was discontinued, the US was desperate for a new repository. They found their new facility in the salt beds of southeastern New Mexico and west Texas. In this arid desert, deep underground lies the remnants of an ocean from the Permian age. The ocean dried, depositing a large amount of salt in the earth. The salt turned out to be a perfect place to have a nuclear repository, which was dubbed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Yet due to the nature of the repository, as well as some recent accidents that have occurred with this plant, it’s continued use remains a sensitive issue. Experts and the public alike are split on this issue. As such, many speeches and articles have been released to the public urging a specific position. One such piece comes from New York Time’s writer Matthew Wald. In his article, “Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds,” he constructs a supported argument  in favor of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico. He accomplishes this by employing effective use of appeals to credibility and logic that are appropriate for his general, non-technical audience.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

At this point I have only had the opportunity to review Brandon Goldenberg's draft due to the lack of published drafts by my peers. If another draft becomes available I will add to this as soon as possible.

• Who is my audience?

This paper is intended for incoming freshman in my field of chemical engineering. The paper is written so that they can understand what a rhetorical analysis in our field looks like.

• What biases might my readers have? Am I respecting their opinions while also achieving my own purpose?

It is unclear what my readers' preconceptions my be on the subject of nuclear energy and waste. However, my analysis is written in such a way that it respects others' biases by providing evidence for each of the claims.

• What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting those expectations?

My paper is written for science majors. For this reason, they are expecting claims that are well supported with logical evidence. I attempted to do this by including a variety of quotations from my chosen article, and I supplied explanations for these pieces of evidence. Furthermore, I even included a secondary source of material to provide outside information for the reader. These elements helped me to meet my readers' expectations.

• How much information do I need to give to my audience? How much background information or context should I provide for them without insulting their expertise?

For this piece I assumed my readers had little knowledge of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. It is not well-known, despite being the nation's only repository. My article did not include a large amount of technical information, so I did not have to explain any complex concepts for my readers.

• What kind of language is suitable for this audience?

 I tried to keep my vocabulary quite approachable. An incoming student for my field does not possess a substantial technical vocabulary. I also found that I could effectively analyze the article without using any language that could require specialized knowledge.

• What kind of tone should I use with my audience? Did I use this tone consistently throughout my draft?

 My tone should be professional and formal. I want the paper to come off as well-researched and understood. I avoided personal pronouns and awkward sentence structures. Most of the paper sticks to this tone, but there are a few instances where my wording undermined the professionalism that I was trying to convey.

Clarity, Part 1

The four sections I chose to read were Mixed Constructions, Misplaced and Dangling Modifiers, Emphasis, and Wordy Sentences.

Mixed Constructions taught me some important lessons. Overall I found that my writing tends to avoid the mistakes documented in this section. However, I found the subsection on avoiding is when, is where, and reason...is to be very helpful. I tend to stay away from these constructions, but I was not aware that they are frowned upon for formal writing.

In the section entitled "Misplaced and entangled Modifiers' I found the section on awkwardly placed modifiers to be quite helpful I am guilty of adding lengthy modifiers between a subject and its verb, which often causes my writing to sound strange. This section clearly outlinen this issue and now I am quite aware of the mistake I have been making.

Of all the sections I read, I found "Emphasis" to be the most useful. I often struggle when I try to communicate the ideas I believe are important. This section helped me understand a myriad of techniques that I can use to emphasize important ideas. I am particularly fond of using choppy sentences rather than choosing to subordinate or coordinate clauses, but I can work on combining ideas to let my work flow smoothly

In the past I have struggled with wordy sentences. Because of this, I have taken a lot of care to eliminate any phrases or clauses that are not concise. This section will definitely help me to continue reflecting on the effectiveness of my writing.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

For my peer reviewers:

To view and comment on my draft, click here.

I had some difficulty writing this piece. I found it fairly difficult to find my author's position on the subject since most of the article was presented in a listing of facts sort of format. I did derive some argument from the text, but I feel some of my body paragraphs (specifically the appeal to logic paragraph) seem like they may be lacking support in the text. So pay attention to that and let me know how I can improve.

I also think my conclusion could use some work. I actually really like the content of the conclusion, buy I think that it sounds more like an introduction or even a body paragraph. I have even considered reformatting and changing my whole paper to be more like the conclusion since it has more solid supporting evidence. Let me know what you think of this idea and the content of the conclusion.

Reflection:

At this point I have only been able to review one of my peer's projects. This is because the only other project I am able to comment on has already been extensively reviewed. If another one of my peers posts their link, I will be sure to revise this reflection.

I reviewed Brandon Goldenberg's draft.  Brandon's writing was fairly effective at communicating his ideas. However, while reading his draft I learned how easy it is to create wordy sentences when trying to communicate your ideas. I think this is a result of trying to maintain a professional tone. For example, Brandon writes, "A belief that I believe is shared by students who study science, is wanting to learn about ways to improve the quality of people's, animal's, and the world's lives." While, grammatically, this is not incorrect, his repitition of the word 'belief' is awkward. I understand that he is trying to clearly show that this belief is shared between himself and others in his field, but this format is clearly wordy and could be revised to be more concise (which was my advice to Brandon).

Project 2 Outline

Introduction

For my introduction I plan on providing some history about the US' nuclear waste repositories, including Yucca mountain and WIPP. This will provide some context on the subject and frame the analysis to come.

Thesis

Here is the thesis that I have created: In his article, “Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds,” Matthew L. Wald of the New York Times constructs a position in support of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico. He accomplishes this by writing in a scientific style that emphasizes the use of appeals to credibility and logic while staying appropriate for the audience that frequents his medium.

The Body Paragraphs

1. Will talk about some of the considerations that the author has to take when writing his piece: audience and context of the piece. And how these two elements will effect the content of his writing
2. This paragraph will briefly summarize the authors credentials and give background
3. Rhetorical strategy: Although I do not mention pathos in the introduction, I will briefly describe why pathos is not emphasized for this article. This will simultaneously explain what could seem to be a missing point for this piece while setting up the next body paragraphs. Support includes the fact that images are present as well as quotation about emotionally endearing account.
4. Rhetorical strategy: This paragraph will analyze the author's use of ethos in the piece. With support using quote from the article
5. Rhetorical strategy: This paragraph will analyze the author's use of logos in the piece. With support using multiple quotes from the article.

Conclusion

The conclusion will synthesize the information above. It will explain how this article is effective at advocating for the continued use of WIPP since it takes a scientific style that emphasizes the credibility and logic of the argument rather than the emotional appeal while still including some elements of pathos to make this piece valuable for any background of person.  

  

Draft Thesis Statement

For my thesis I tried to synthesize all the elements of the project into two sentences. You can see that I chose the different strategies and elements of the article's rhetorical situation that are most relevant to the article and are most relevant to this field's writing style. Since scientific writing (whether it be reporting or otherwise) is mostly based on logic and credibility, these were the two elements that I chose to focus on in terms of rhetorical strategies.

I think this thesis has mapped out my project fairly well and it should be fairly easy to craft a basic structure for the piece. I think I will struggle with incorporating how the elements of the rhetorical situation play a role in how the piece is constructed.

Thesis:

In his article, “Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds,” Matthew L. Wald of the New York Times constructs a position in support of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico. He accomplishes this by employing effective use of appeals to credibility and logic that are appropriate for his general, non-technical audience.

Thesis 2:

In his article, “Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds,” he constructs a supported argument  in favor of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico. He accomplishes this by employing effective use of appeals to credibility and logic that are appropriate for his general, non-technical audience.

After reading my classmates Tripp Twyman and Brandon Goldenberg's theses I learned a few important strategies for writing a strong thesis. I also learned that I was should compose more than one thesis so that I can have a couple options to choose from (and because that is the assignment we were given). Above I added the thesis that I used in my draft since it is a new revised version of the one in this post.

 In terms of strategies I learned, I thought it was effective how both of my classmates referred to the specific strategies in their thesis. In mine I chose to use the broad terms of ethos, logos, and pathos rather than referring to the specific strategies that give the author these three elements. I thought this latter method was effective and it clearly mapped out the paper from the start.

Analyzing my Audience

• What are their beliefs and assumptions?

Since my audience consists of students who are just entering my field, I would assume they lack extensive knowledge on the topic of nuclear waste. They likely assume that all nuclear waste is very dangerous and harmful to be around. With that being said, they probably understand the necesity of nuclear waste storage facilities.

• What kind of language is appropriate for them?

I think that the language can be somewhat technical. As someone entering my field, each member of the audience should have a basic understanding of chemistry from their high school education. For that reason, my language should be limited to a level of technicality that can be understood with a high school chemistry/physics background.

• What are their sociopolitical and economic backgrounds? 

My audience consists of students, so this defines them socially. Since I study a science related field, it is likely that they are leftward leaning in terms of political affiliation, but this is not for sure so I should write for an audience of any political background. The same goes for their economic background. Although there may be trends as to what economic backgrounds commonly choose chemical engineering as their major, it can not be determined for certain where my audience actually comes from.

• What position might they take on the issue/

I would assume that my audience would advocate for the continued use of this nuclear repository. They likely understand the necessity of proper waste storage and the benefits of using nuclear energy.

• What will they want to know?

They will want to know why we need a nuclear waste repository. They will also want to know what makes the WIPP a safe place for long-term waste storage.

• In general, how can they best be persuaded?

For scientists, the best way to be persuaded is with clear evidence of the position. So the facts must point to a logical conclusion that the audience can reach themselves without explicitly being told so.

Cluster of "Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds"

For my cluster I documented the key points related to the rhetorical situation, cultural ideologies, and key rhetorical strategies that are related to the article. I did this using Microsoft Word smart art and used the radial design that shows the web of connection for each of the topics.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds"

Nanodudek. "Three Elements of an Argument" 08/08/2013 via Wikipedia
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

Appeals to credibility or character:

Which items on the bullet list on pg. 183 are present?

• References to credible sources

"“It’s eternity,” said Dirk Roberson, a guide for the frequent tours the Energy Department gives to visitors to the salt mine"

• Tone

The overall tone of the piece is very professional. This gives it an air of credibility.

• Word Choice

The author chooses to use some technical vocabulary without getting to technical for her audience, as seen here: "The material buried at the plant, which began accepting waste in 1999, is limited by law to plutonium waste from making weapons, which is exceptionally long-lived but not highly radioactive."

• Appeals to values shared by the audience

The article appeals to the audiences value of a safe way to store nuclear waste. Wald writes, "Rev. David Wilson Rogers, of the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Carlsbad, said: 'This facility has the opportunity to give a blessing to the world by having a safe repository.'"
The above appeals to credibility all work towards the same goal. They create a very professional tone that appears to be well researched and understood by the author. The author has used these techniques to create a convincing piece that breathes professionalism without letting his own biases intrude on the content.
 
Appeal to Emotion:

• Emtionally compelling narrative

"Rev. David Wilson Rogers, of the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Carlsbad, said: 'This facility has the opportunity to give a blessing to the world by having a safe repository.'"

• Images

The article includes a slideshow of images about the article as can be seen here.
These are the only two examples of pathos that I could find for the article. Because the article is not trying to convince the reader of a position on the subject, it does not use emotion based arguments to push its point. Any more appeals to emotion would cause the author to lose some credibility.  

Appeal to Logic

• Interviews

As quoted above, the article employs numerous interviews from many different people who are involved in the project.

• Expert Opinions

Allison M. Macfarlane, a geologist who is chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and who served on a presidential study commission established after the Yucca plan was canceled, said WIPP proves it can be done.

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

As is characteristic of the New York Times,  the piece is very well organizes and contains great structure and transitions between ideas.
The author's first and foremost goal of the article is to sound logical. The information is presented in a logical fashion and approaches to subject matter from all possible angles. The author avoids any logical fallacies throughout the piece. The overall effect is an easy-to-follow article that is well supported.