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.

Analyzing Message in "Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds"

Reflecting on the bullets from pg. 182 of A Student's Guide to First Year Writing:

Here are the most relevant bullets from pg. 182.

• respond to a particular occasion or text?

This bullet is relevant because the text is responding to the use of New Mexico salt beds as a nuclear waste repository.

• explore a topic?

The article is exploring the topic of nuclear waste storage and what makes a location suitable for a repository.

• reflect on a topic?

The article does some reflection on how the repository will effect the community.

Here are the bullets that are not relevant:

• express an idea or opinion?
• analyze, synthesize, or interpret?
• persuade readers of something?
• advocate for change?
• move the readers to feel a certain way?

The above bullets are all related in that they are related to subjective interepretations of information. This text attempts to stay objective on the subject by relaying facts and details about the subject. These bullets are not related to the message of this article.

Are there any nuances and layers to the message the author/speaker is trying to get across? 

There are some nuances to the message. The general message is that the salt beds of New Mexico are a good place to store nuclear waste. Some of the nuances that the author includes relate to why the salt beds are effective for storing nuclear waste. She describes how the salt behaves around the waste in an attempt to further her message and convince her audience with somewhat technical details.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

1.What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

Because this article was written for our own culture, it can be said that we share most (if not all) of the values/beliefs of the culture for which this was written. Specifically, we value the safety and well-being of our community.


2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?

Some members of our community may not share the belief that we need to be using nuclear energy in the first place. Although this article is concerned with how to store nuclear waste, many people believe that this nuclear waste should not have been created in the first place due to the risks associated with nuclear power and waste disposal.

3. If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?

This text was not written in a culture distant or different from our own.

4. If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs , etc., developed or changed over time?

This text was written before another accident that happened in the WIPP. The accident involved some oversights as to what was being placed in storage barrels in the repository. As a result, some of the barrels exploded, causing a very small leak of low-level radiation. Because of this event and the exaggerated coverage by the media, a large portion of people's outlook on the repository changed. This incident caused a visible shift in the culture's opinion of the WIPP, causing many community members to lose their trust in the WIPP's operation.

Reflection on my peers' analyses:

I reviewed the blog posts of Brandon Goldenberg and Nicole Nelson. Both were interesting explorations of each person's own assumptions about the cultures that were involved with the issue. Brandon made an interesting claim where he generalized all of ethical humans to have the same opinion about de-extinction. While I did not disagree with his reasoning, it was interesting to observe how this represented his own bias on his subject. Nicole's post confused me because I think she and I had differing opinions of the definition of the word 'culture.' I was interpreting it in a more global sense, such as the culture of the United States or the culture of Arizona. I believe she took it to be culture's on a smaller scale. Like the culture of different professions. This was interesting because it helped me understand how your opinion can be influenced by more than just where you live. 

Analyzing My Audience

What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

The main value that plays an important role in the article is public health. This is the primary concern that is involved when discussing nuclear energy and waste. The culture of the US is very much interested in the safety and well being of its people.


Does the text address these cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly or indirectly?

The article addresses this cultural value directly. The subject of the article is finding a safe place to store nuclear waste. Much of the article is spent describing how the New Mexico location is an optimal site to store nuclear waste. The article also describes an accident where a truck caught fire in the repository. The purpose of this section was to demonstrate how the repository is not immune to accidents. However, the conflict that this accident is resolved when the article describes how injuries due to the accident were minimal. This keeps the public's safety interests on the forefront of the article, addressing them directly.

What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture is a certain way?

The article is very supportive of the culture's value of public safety. The article's purpose is to describe how the repository's location is very safe. It does not seek to modify the culture's pre-established value structure. Rather, it works within them to assuage any fears as per the purpose of the article.

Cultural Analysis of "Nuclear Waste Solution Seen in Desert Salt Beds"

The thesis of this article is that the salt beds of south eastern New Mexico is a good location for a nuclear waste repository. The article references yucca mountain, which was a cultural event that involved a nuclear waste repositroy. Yucca mountain had huge opposition from Nevada state residents. The article uses this reference to demonstrate how the New Mexico repository is different. The WIPP (the repository being described) has support from the local community, unlike the Yucca mountain operation.

The reason that the WIPP is publicly supported is because the operation is happening in a rural area. The WIPP will bring jobs to the area, stimulating the local economy. This is a cultural value that is present in the article and it directly relates to the thesis since it supports the assertion that this location is a good place for a waste repository.

Because this audience is fairly general, (it comes fro the New York Times), this cultural value will help the audience relate to the thesis. Everyone recognizes the need for employent, so this is a good cultural value to focus on to engage the reader.


See the article here.

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

To see my evaluation of rhetorical situations click here.

Developing a Research Question

While brainstorming some research questions, I referred to the section in Rules for Writers about forming a research question. I happened to glance at one of their example questions and it instantly caught my interest. The question was "Which geological formations are the safest repositories for nuclear waste?"

It turns out that I am currently working in a field that ties directly to this topic. My job this summer is with Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia is the most prominent national laboratory and one of the projects they are tied to is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The WIPP is the only operable nuclear waste storage facility in the country. I work in the Sandia lab in Carlsbad, New Mexico that does much of the research related to the WIPP. Recently the WIPP had an incident where one of the storage cotainers in the facility ruptured, causing low-level radiation leakage. Since the incident the continued operation of WIPP has been highly contentious. This makes it a perfect subject for my next project.

So, here are a few research questions that I can pose:

Should the US be using nuclear energy?

Should the WIPP continue as a repository?

Is it safe to be storing nuclear waste relatively close to human habitance?

Is the WIPP a safe repository for long term storage?

Reflection on Project 1

Challenges of the project

The biggest challenge the project presented was for me to stay unbiased. The quick reference guide was meant to be objective. I had trouble keeping my opinions on the matter from leaking out. This is where the help of my peer reviewers was quite helpful.

Successes of the project

I thought that the final product I produced looked very professional. The organization was pleasing to the eye and easy to follow. None of the passages were too long, which is something a good quick reference guide has. It doesn't intimidate the reader and communicates ideas concisely. I did this by paying attention to other QRG's and how they held my interest. I found that a lot of more wordy guides would cause me to lose interest.

What strategies did I find to be most effective?

Because I was attempting to stay relatively unbiased, I found that the most effective technique was to address the most common questions about fracking with based information while providing a reference. In terms of design and organization, I found that linking each of my subheads in a progressive style gave the piece nice flow and was easy to follow.

What strategies were not effective for my project?

I often found myself wanting to elaborate too much on some of the ideas. The point of each passage would be lost in minor details. When I was revising I made sure to scrutinize each paragraph carefully, ensuring that each paragraph stuck to and developed its point.

How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences I've had in the past?

This writing process was similar in that I wrote multiple drafts for the project. As per usual, my final draft did not differ greatly from the original.

How was the writing process different to other school writing experiences I've had in the past?

I enjoyed the way this project was set up. Normally a writing project is assigned all at once with a distant deadline. This leaves it up to the student to proactively research, draft, and review their work. By having us work on one small step at a time, come writing time I had everything I needed and knew exactly what I wanted to create.

Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework?

Something that was very valuable was the process for evaluating sources. That process can be applied to any discipline, and it is especially important for any science related fields. It was also very helpful to learn about different databases and how to navigate them properly.


 

Project #1

To view my quick reference guide, click here.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

This exercise was interesting. I was not conscious of how my sentence pattern's variation (or lack thereof). Something that was difficult for me was determining subordinate versus independent clauses. I would like to work more on that. I was surprised, actually, because my sentence purposes varied a lot, while their structure did not. I think it is important for me to try and vary my sentence structure while maintaining the different sentence purposes. Read my annotated paragraph here.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

AJC. "Peer Review" 05/23/2008 via Flickr. Attribution Share-Alike Generic 2.0

 License

 

 

I had the opportunity to review Jason Wittler's draft for project 1. I was also supposed to review Caleb Wiley's, but he unfortunately has not updated his blog with a link to his draft.

After reviewing Jason's comments on my draft (Caleb did not have the opportunity to review yet) I am very pleased with his comments. Most of the issues that he found were often related to the format and organization of each section. This is something I tend to struggle with and I really appreciate having someone critiquing the flow of my sentences.

One thing that I wanted my peer reviewers to focus on was staying unbiased throughout my guide. I feel that I was effective at portraying the facts objectively, but in my final bullet Jason brough to my attention that the formatting and wording gave away my bias. This was good for me to see as I had not intended to sound as if I was favoring one side, but after reading Jason's comments I could see how the emphasis I give for one side clearly reveals bias.

To revise my guide I plan on fixing any clarity issues as well as quieting any instances of bias. I will make sure that the areas Jason commented on are revised to sound and flow smoothly. I also plan on changing that final subhead and adding a more formal conclusion to close the guide.

Integrating a Quote

Legend:
Establishes authority
Signal Phrase
Boundary
Quote

Summary of "UC's Doctoral Student's Research Digs Deep into the Fracking Controversy"

Paragraph Summary:

1. Provides context on the issue at hand. Gives background information about the subject of the article.
2. More context on what fracking is and where it is being used
3. Describes the work that subject has done in the field. Describes the student's research and how it relates to the EPA.
4. More specific information about the chemicals present in fracking solutions
5. The subject of the article summarizes her findings, encourages environmentally safe practices.
6. Subject speaks on what the result of the EPA will do.
7. Gives specifics as to how the subject of the article conducted her research.

Revise List to Consolidate Ideas

Doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati is currently doing research on the process of hydraulic fracturing. She has found that the chemicals used can be quite dangerous and hopes that an upcoming EPA study encourages companies engaged in fracking to be envirmentally considerate.

Revise Step 2

Addition to above: The studies perfomed by the doctoral student include analysis of the disposal process of fracking fluid as well as observation of public statements on the subject.


Peer Comparison

For my peer comparison, I looked at Jason Whittler's blog. I found his summary quite similar to mine. He also chose to summarize each paragraph in a numbered list format, giving each paragraph only one or two sentences, just as I did. The only difference I could find was that he chose not to revise his second step. He probably found that he gathered all the relevant information with his first attempt.

  

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

For my peer reviewer:

My quick reference guide is meant to be unbiased. This, of course, is hard to do since I have a position on the issue. Pay close attention to moments where my bias comes out and help me with ways to assuage those instances. I'd also like the progression of the guide to be smooth. I'd like each question to build of the information provided in the last passage. Other than that, I think it is important that my sentences and structure make sense. If any ambiguity is created please point this out.


To read and comment on the guide, click here.

QRG's: The Genre

• Conventions of this genre and how the author defines them.

Quick reference guides follow very similar formats that define the conventions of this genre. Quick reference guides are meant to be, as the name implies, fast ways to learn the basics about a subject or event. For this reason the author chooses to organize the information in a fashion that answers any potential questions quickly. As you will see with any quick reference guide, the guide starts with an introduction into its chosen subject as well as a relevant image. This contextualizes the subject for the reader and sets up the information to come.

        The introduction is followed by a series of different subheads. These subheads can take the form of common questions, as seen in the guide to the Sochi olympics and the guide to Gamergate. The subheads can also take on the form of a list of important people, various facts, and different topics related to the general theme. Under each subhead, the author then elaborates or answers the posed question. 

After the author has sufficiently addressed the important aspects to the subject of their quick reference guide, they occasionally will conclude with some final thoughts, or in the case of the Puerto Rico guide, some ways to address the problem.

• Purpose of Quick Reference Guides

As stated above, quick reference guides are made to inundate readers with important, relevant information about a certain subject. They are fast and easy to follow guides that help readers get the basic information about a given subject.

• Intended Audience

The intended audience for most QRGs is the same. They are often intended for an audience with little background on the subject. Some, more technical QRGs, can have a more specialized audience, but in general they are very approachable pieces of literature.


Reflection

I reviewed and replied to Nicole Nelson's, Brandon Goldenburg's,  and Jason Wittler's posts on the genre of QRGs. I thought they all brought up interesting points about QRGs. Nicole and Brandon specifically noted how all of the QRGs the we reviewed were focused on cultural issues. This is something I did not consider, but after reading their posts it was quite obvious. Jason pointed out that the QRGs are meant for a general audience. I also picked up on this and I strongly identified with this portion of his analysis. Another important note brought up by all three of my classmates was that the QRGs are written in an unbiased form with an objective tone. Overall some good lessons that should help me when I write my own.

Cluster of Fracking Controversy

Annotated Bibliography in ACS Style

American Chemical Society Style

Ideology in My Controversy

The Fracking Controversy

• Who is involved?

The two major groups we see in this controversy are the oil and gas industries and the communities affected by fracking.

• Who are some of the major speakers/writers?

Josh Fox produced a very controversial documentary in 2010 entitled Gasland. This documentary single-handedly brought the issue of hydraulic fracturing into the public eye. 

• What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

The gas and oil companies hold a lot of economic power in their communities. Often these companies are the main income for their area's, which also gives them a lot of social and political power. The community, specifically the community members opposed to fracking, also hold a lot of political power as voters.

• What does each group value?

The oil and gas companies seem to value profiting and efficiently utilizing natural resources. The community, however, values the health and well being of its citizens.

• Is there a power differential between the two groups?

The oil and gas companies definitely have a large amount of power. Their economic positions give them huge social and political gains.

• Is there any acknowledged common ground?

Both groups claim that they have the community's best interests at heart.

• Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

Both groups think they understand the environmental effects while both think that the other does not.

• Do the various groups listen to each other?

Largely the oil and gas companies ignore the claims made by the community and environmentalists. Similarly, the community and environmentalists ignore the oil and gas companies' claims that the practice of fracking is safe for the environment.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Source 1: From Columbia University in the City of New York's facebook page.
Post text with associated link:

A new study from the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the University of Pennsylvania found a 27 percent spike in cardiology-related complaints such as stroke, suggesting that hydraulic fracturing could be affecting human health. Link

• Credibility: This facebook page is not linked with a person, rather it is the official webpage of Columbia University. This is supported by the number of followers of the page (over two hundred twenty thousand). This establishes the poster's credibility as a representative of the University.
• Location: The location from where they are posting is likely New York City. Although the city is not directly affected by fracking, the state as a whole has a large amount of reserves that can be harnessed and as such this is a very relevant issue for the area.
• Network: Of the thousands of followers it is likely that many scholars, professionals, and academic related officials are linked to this page. 
• Content: The post includes a link to a source for the claim that the post makes. This clearly corroborates the statements made.
• Contextual Updates: This is the first post from this page that I could find on the subject.
• Age: The account has been around for over five years.
• Reliability: This source of information is reliable.

Source 2: From Texas Oil and Gas Association's facebook page.
Post text with associated link:
Fracking has helped American become more energy independent. SHARE this post and click below to read more if you support American energy independence! Link

• Credibility: This facebook page is not linked with a person, rather it is the official webpage of the Texas Oil and Gas Association. This does establish some credibility in the field of geochemistry and geophysics.
• Location: As the Texas Oil and Gas association. this page originates from Texas. Texas is a hot bed for fracking and one of the major states where fracking is being considered and implemented on a very large scale.
• Network: No other individuals with institutional credibility could be found within their network. However, the page does have over twenty thousand followers.
• Content: The post includes a link to a source for the claim that the post makes. This clearly corroborates the statements made.
• Contextual Updates: Many of the previous posts by this page are quite similar to this one. The page is often found defending fracking.
• Age: The account has been around for over five years.
• Reliability: This source is reliable for the information that it is supplying since it has an external resource linked in the post.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

Source 1: "Geochemical evaluation of flowback brine from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania, USA"

• The purpose of this article is to look into the the effects that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has on ground water near drill sites. This is done by looking at some key components of the salty ground water runoff (known as brine) and how this water measures up to drinking water standards.
• The article was published in a journal out of Oxford, England.
• This article offers over twenty citations to a variety of sources. The majority of these sources are journal articles authored by scholars. The other citations are largely direct references to US public policies.
• The article is authored by three scholars. The writing group was headed by Arthur W. Rose, a scholar from Penn State University.
• Since this article was published in an academic journal, the intended audience is scholars and other scientists who can use the information.

Source 2: "Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking)"

• The purpose of this article is to analyze all the potential costs and benefits that are associated with hydraulic fracturing.
• This article was published in a journal out of Oxford, England
• Over one hundred references were used for this article. The references listed are journal articles, news reports, national and state public policies.
• This article was written by Benjamin K. Sovacool, a scholar from Vermont Law School.
• As an academic journal, the intended audience is scholars and others interested in the subject.

Evaluation of General Sources

Source 1: "UC's Doctoral Student's Research Digs Deep into the Fracking Controversy"

• URL: This article comes from the University of Cincinnati and as such has the .edu extension. This means the information contained in the article comes from an academic source and is credible.
• Author: The author for the article is Dawn Fuller. Within the article an email and phone number are provided, giving her some transparency. After a search of her name it was found that she is a public information author for the University of Cincinnati. The work she is describing is authored by a doctoral student who, based on her education and field of study, is qualified in this field.
• Last Updated: The page was last updated on April 11, 2011. This information is fairly update, but the information provided is as relevant today as it was then. There are no links on the page.
• Purpose: The purpose of this article is to inform the reader. It is informing the public of the research being performed in the subject area.
• Graphics: The only graphic on the page is a photo of the student that the article describes. It is simply showing the subject of the article.
• Position on Subject: The position described is fairly objective. Since it is an evaluation of the controversy it attempts to not take sides on the subject. Rather it describes the opposing ideologies that are fueling the controversy.
• Links: There are no links present in the article.

Source 2: "'Fracking' controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing"

URL: The URL for this article has the .com extension. However, it is from sciencedirect.com which is a reputable source for scholarly articles.
Author: This article is authored by six different people. Each of them is a scholar associated with a prominent university. As such they each are credible. The article also comes from a peer-reviewed journal, which further proves its credibility.
Last Updated: The article was last updated November 15, 2013. This information is less than two years old, so the information is still relevant. There are various links for each of the sources used. They do not take you to the sources directly, but provide additional information about each source.
Purpose: The text's purpose is to inform the reader about the controversy. The author's attempt to characterize the opposing view points that are fueling the "fracking" controversy.
Graphics: The article contains no graphics.
Position on Subject: The source does not take a stand on the controversy itself. The purpose is the document the opposing view points rather than picking a side.
Links: The source provides a large number of sources from which it has drawn evidence from. These sources all seem to be reputable and provide multiple pathways for further inquiry. 

My Field of Study: Chemical Engineering

Lawless, Rick. "BTEC Bioreactors" 08/23/2007 via Wikipedia
Creative Commons 3.0 License

• My chosen field of study is Chemical Engineering. Chemical Engineering is a very broad field. In general, a chemical engineer learns how to take a raw material and transform it into a usable material or product via a variety of chemical processes. 
• What drew me to chemical engineering was the diversity of its subject matter. Chemical Engineers are exposed to high level chemistry, math , physics, and a variety of specialized courses. Due to my interest in science of all forms, chemical engineering was a logical choice that allowed me to expose myself to many fields within the science genre.
• Chemical Engineers commonly go into industry as consultants for plants and various manufacturing outfits. They are apart of virtually every consumer good manufacturing process.
• The most exciting work being done by chemical engineers is the research in nanotechnology. This is a quickly expanding field with many universities and private companies taking great interest in its applications. Nanotechnology has many important applications from drug delivery, water purification, electronics, and many more.
• As a scientific profession, chemical engineering has scores of academic journals for those working in industry. The most influential are as follows:
• Journal of Catalysis San Diego, CA
  
• Applied Energy Oxford, England
• Journal of Hazardous Materials Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Learning Reflection

After reviewing my schedule for the summer, it was clear that the biggest challenge I would face would be. I am currently employed as a full time intern at a national lab, so my week has forty hours dedicated to work. To be successful I will need to plan my work ahead of time. I do not have the freedom to procrastinate with such a large commitment. This means that after each deadline I will need to immediately look ahead at what I must complete next so that I can properly schedule my class work without jeopardizing my other commitments (i.e. sleep). This will require pro-activity and a high level of attention, but with proper planning I will be successful.

My Thoughts on Public Comments

• Many of the comments on the article, "Donald Trump Issues New Statement On Mexican Immigrants," agree with Trump's position on illegal immigration. They share his fears that illegal aliens bring crime to the country and hurt the economy by placing unnecessary strain on the nations taxpayers. The other group present in this comment section are those who disagree with Trump. These people's fear is that Trump will become president and act on what these people perceive as prejudice towards Hispanics.
• Many, if not all, of the comments are purely based on personal experience. Each author reacts to Trump's position by generalizing Hispanic culture in the US based on what they have observed. None of the comments offer any statistical evidence.
• A few of the commenters provided reasonable responses to the articles. On this list I would include Jake, BongBong,  and Al'n. These three are effective because their comments are on topic (unlike many of the other comments) and also they don't resort to defaming Trump's character. They provide explanations for their positions, often based on personal experience without coming across as pretentious. The strongest aspect of their comments is the evidence given. They form an argument not based purely on accusations.
• A few of the comments seemed to lack credibility. Since many of the comments did not make an effort to back up their claims, they came across as unsubstantiated. All of the anonymous commenters (anonymity in itself undermined their credibility), Paul, Mike, and nerdrage did not provide convincing evidence for their claims. This resulted in comments that were not convincing or trustworthy. 

What I Learned From My Classmates

I had the opportunity to read Jason Wittler's and Nicole Nelson's blogs. Both brought up very interesting perspectives on all the comments. The most notable lesson that Jason showed me was that none of the comments contained any concrete evidence. Every commenter merely appealed to personal experience and lacked any trace of objectivity. I enjoyed Jason's desire for fundamental truth from these commenters. Nicole taught me to look at all the information presented to you when evaluating a source (in this case a comment). She underscored the importance of looking at the username and using this to characterize the commenter's credibility. This, too, was a valuable lesson.

Sacrilege for the Sake of Profit

The above article describes the intricacies of a pending development. The project is a tourist development on the edge and in the Grand Canyon near the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado River. This area is sacred to the region's native tribes and the proposed project threatens this practically pristine location. This topic interests me because I have had the opportunity to visit the confluence via multiple river trips. I also grew up very close to the canyon and have a special appreciation for the region. As such I am interested in preserving the natural beauty in and around the canyon. This article was found on Smithsonian.com.

My Writing Process

1. What type of writer do I consider myself to be?

I would most identify as a heavy reviser. I often have a general idea of the approach I would like to take before I start writing. I often don't quite have supporting claims that tie in to my argument properly until I start putting pen to paper. As I write out my arguments, they evolve into a coherent, linear progression of my main idea. This, however, occurs after some revision.

2. Does my writing process include several approaches? Which ones?

As I stated above, I most identify as a heavy reviser. With that being said, I would also say my writing process includes some elements of a procrastinator's. 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.

3. Does my writing approach seem to be successful? What are the strengths and weaknesses of my approach?

My writing approach generally is fairly effective. I've found that I can revise my first thoughts into a coherent piece, despite my procrastination tendencies. For me, getting the ideas on the page is the hardest step, so normally my first revision can effectively tidy up my paper. The main weakness is that this can be a stressful process. With no concrete plan behind my work, I often fear that my argument could lead me to a dead end in terms of supporting evidence. This rarely happens, but it is a risk I take by not mapping out my paper beforehand.

4. Would it be beneficial for me to try a different approach? Why or why not?

I think that the heavy planning approach would be beneficial for my peace of mind. As I've said, I like to just get something on paper to make the task feel less daunting. This comes at a price, as I described in the last paragraph. Although it goes against my nature, planning the paper before writing it would take a lot of the stress out of the writing process and allow me to do fewer revisions.

Pasternak, Leonid. "The Passion of Creation" 02/19/2013 via Wikipedia.
Public Domain Dedication License