Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

In this blog post I will be evaluating three sources of opinionated text. I will look at the author and determine how credible they seem, I will also analyze how the text is written and what audience it appeals to, and finally I will investigate the content of the article.

We Collaborate. "Evaluation" 5/25/2015 via Flickr.
Attirbution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. 

Here is a link to my evaluation of the three acts of public speech.

Reflection 
After reading Isabel  and Morgan's  evaluations of rhetoric situations I learned there is a lot I can add to make my evaluations better.

Isabel gave me some advice on how to evaluate the credibility of a source when very little information can be found about their history and qualifications. In fact the lack of evidence can be used to define their qualifications.

Reading Morgan's post I realized that I forgot to include other articles written by the speaker while evaluating the content and the speaker. Also, the articles that Morgan evaluated were similar in format and length to mine. This made me more confident that the sources I chose would be enough content to do my project.

Developing a Research Question

In this blog post I will talk about some of the current debates going on in the field of engineering. From these debates I will create a list of possible research questions about controversies in the engineering world. Finally, from this list I will eventually choose a single topic to research.

Geralt. "Question Problem Think Thinking Reflect." 2/18/2015 via Pixabay.
CCO Public Domain/ FAQ License.  

Controversies of Today for a ChemE.
Some of the major controversies on the radar for Chemical Engineers right now include fracking, a method of obtaining natural gas, climate engineering as a way to counteract global warming, and forensics science.

I am very interested in sustainability, climate change, and the environment, so the debate on fracking and climate engineering are topics I would enjoy investigating further. Some possible research questions that I would enjoy looking into include:

Is climate engineering a feasible way to combat global warming?
Are particulates be a savior or will they cause more damage?
One of my professors this year conducts his research on particulates and clouds as a way to help the environment by opposing the Greenhouse Gas effects. I find the topic very intriguing, because I learned in high school that particulate were actually aiding in the Greenhouse Gas effect. Therefore, I would love to learn if they can really help or if they cause negative effects.

Can fracking help the environment more than harm it?
The type of sustainability that really speaks to me is renewable energy. I also have a very strong dislike of coal burning plants, and I have heard that natural gas is cleaner and more efficient than coal at producing energy. However, if the process by which natural gas is collected, fracking, is more detrimental than it becomes a less favorable option. Because my knowledge on fracking and natural gas is so limited, I would like to learn more about it, to create a reasonable opinion on the subject.

Reflection on Project 1

In this post I will reflect on my experience building a Quick Reference Guide. I will reflect by answering and discussing the bullet points assigned with the project.

Sherioz. "Reflection Water Canal Mirroring Travel Spain"  9/18/2013 via Pixabay.
 CCO Public Domain/ FAQ License. 

1. What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide Project?

The main challenge I faced while writing the Quick Reference Guide was determining the conventions of a Quick Reference Guide. I am accustomed to writing traditional essays and blog posts, and I find the QRG to be somewhere in between the two. The QRG is supposed to be brief and concise like a blog post, but detailed like an essay. 

Trying to find the balance between these two types of writing was the hardest part of making my QRG. 

2. What successes did you experience on the project?

From this project  I believe that I have learned how to evaluate sources for credibility and motivation. This project really had us focus on seeing how credible the website was before we used the information it provided.

I also think this project taught me how to be concise, but still provide a lot of information about a topic. It helped me keep my paragraphs short and on topic while maintaining a detailed description.

3. What kind of strategies and writing practices did you find useful in your project?
Subheadings, which the class decided was a convention of the genre, I found to be very useful. the subheadings were crucial in keeping the paragraphs short and on topic. I also found the subheadings provided a really easy organizational structure that was easy to write with and easy for the reader to understand.

4. How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences?
I found this writing process to be similar to the writing process I have used for writing research papers and also for writing blog posts. Because of the research we conducted early in the project, the organization seemed very similar to starting a research essay. However, because the QRG needs to be formatted a certain way and the use of visual aids is very important, the writing processes seemed like a blog post.

5. How was the writing process different to other school writing experiences?
I typically use outlines when writing a paper, and the outline was very unhelpful for this genre. I usually start with a very general outline that includes the main points are going to be. However, the QRG is broken into more sections than the typical essay, the main points just became the different subheadings. Because main ideas became the subheadings it gave the essay its structure, but was not as helpful in giving content than a regular essay.

6. Would any of the skills you practiced in this project be useful in your other coursework? 
I think the most transferable skill I practiced was how to analyze sources. As I continue my education as an engineering student, I know there will be more research papers to write and I think being able to evaluate how credible a source is, is important.

Reflection:
After reading Carter and Mika's reflection on Project 1, I realized I agreed with several of the points they mentioned, that I had not considered before.

When Carter was talking about how this writing style was different to his previous experience he mentioned persuasive essays. Once he mentioned them I realized one of the reasons I found this genre kinda weird to write results from my extensive works in writing persuasive essays. I always used to get in trouble for not choosing a side and sticking with it, so it was difficult to be non-biased in the QRG.

Also, Mike mentioned how the QRG was like writing a literary analysis. The past couple of years I wrote only commentaries about pieces of literature, and I agree the two genres share some similarities. They both require lots of background, and specific examples to make the reader understand the point you are trying to make.

Quick Reference Guide

Below is a link to the final draft of my Project 1 assignment. 

Geralt. "Hook Check Mark Done Ticked Off Symbol Icon Form"
9/26/2014 via Pixabay. CCO Public Domain/ FAQ License.  

Here is the link to my Quick Reference Guide on the controversy over genetically modified foods. 

Clarity, Part 2

In this blog post I will review more of the topics for clarity as I self-edit my QRG. I will share what I find interesting,new, and surprising about these topics and how I how I use and can improve them in my wriitng. 

MisterWiki. "A lolcat". 1/13/2010 via Wikipedia-Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. 

Add Needed Words
Just like its name suggests, needed words are words that need to be included in a sentence to make the sentence grammatically correct, or for the sentence to make sense when it is read. For the most part, the categories are self-explanatory and centered around basic grammar.

However, there are some ideas that the Rules for Writing pointed out that I have struggled with in my writing. For example, when using compound sentence structures, words can only be omitted if they are common to both parts of the sentence.

Because I wrote about a controversy, I talked about the same points from different perspectives many times. Because of the similarity in ideas, I found the sentences would share some similarities as well. To make the text easier to read I made sure that if I used a compound sentence structure that all the words were present that would make the sentence make sense.

Provide some Variety 
I find in my writing I have difficulties keeping the beginning of the sentences different, and everything begins to feel very repetitive. I liked that the textbook gave suggestions on how to vary sentences to escape the repetitiveness.

One technique that I will implement is to invert the sentences occasionally. By inverting some of my sentences I think it will change the order of my sentences which will help them be less similar. Because of this slight difference I can improve the variety in my QRG.

One example of where I inverted a sentence was when I changed "This instance brought the fight over GMOs back into the spotlight," to "As a result the fight on GMOs returned to the spotlight." I felt this sentence needed to be changed as the second sentence in the previous paragraph is written very similarly and I thought the two sentences were too close to be as similar in structure as they were.

Choose Appropriate Language 
The biggest thing that I took from the appropriate language section was to make the diction special to the audience that the text is written for. From an earlier blog post we discussed how important it is to identify the audience. One reason for that is to make sure the types of words used are suitable for the people who will be reading it.

One example where I had to ensure the language I used was appropriate to my audience was in the following example, "But, opponents are worried that if these fish escape to ecosystems, the fast growing salmon will exhaust the food supply killing off the natural fish." This sentence simplifies the actual events that would take place, but it describes the main points without all the technical language. 

Find the Exact Words 
The Rules for Writes warned against using too many cliches, idioms, and words whose connotations you are not familiar with. Dictionaries and thesauruses should be used to help find the right words, not to replace every word in a piece of writing.

Because my topic is a science topic I found there was not many instances where I would have used an idiom or cliches to help describe the information I was trying to communicate. This helped me realize that I used words whose definitions were clear, and as a result my QRG is easier to understand.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In the following post I will evaluate the longest paragraph from my QRG to isolate different grammar patterns. I will be identifying five different types of grammar elements.

Pacres, Jeffrey James. "Writing". 2/9/2009 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonDerivs 2.0 Generic License.  

This activity really forced me to look at the technical content of my writing. I realize that I vary the type of sentence I use much more than purpose of my sentences. I could only identify declarative sentences, partially because I feel a research type document does not have conventions that include using imperative or interrogative sentences.

Also, I can happily report that I do not use pronouns with great frequency, and I thank my former math teacher who hate the use of "it". I think pronouns are easy to omit from writing which makes the text more clear and easier to understand.

Here is a link to my longest paragraph.

Copy for Paragraph Analysis

In the following post I will reflect on my analysis of the paragraphs in my QRG according to the guidelines in the Rules for Writing textbook. I will evaluate how well my paragraph format follows what the book believes is good form.

OpenClipartVectors. " Rating Stars System Evaluation." 9/18/2014 via Pixabay.

CCO Public Domain/ FAQ License. 

I feel like according to the textbook, Rules for Writing, my QRG did a horrible job of adhering to the guidelines. That being said, if the guidelines are tweaked a little for the genre, than I scored fairly well.

For example, the first sentence of the paragraphs is supposed to be a topic sentence that introduces the what the rest of the paragraph will talk about. However, a QRG contains more, shorter blocks of writing, and I jump right into the information. But, I use the subheadings like topic sentence. The title identifies what the following text will talk about, allowing the reader to skim and find the information he or she is looking for.

Developing the main point I found to be quite easy in the blocks of text because of their small size. Most of my paragraphs are no more than three or four sentences, so it is easy to stay on a single topic. Also, having the subheadings makes it easier to stay focused on the subject.

Overall, I think my paragraphs did a great job of staying on topic and being easy to follow, however, I think that the short and concise style of my paragraphs caused them to be rather choppy and not very fluid.

Here is the link to my Copy for Paragraph Analysis.

Reflections on Project 1 Draft

In the post below I will reflect on what peer reviewing Trey and Isabel's post taught me about the Project 1 Assignment. To show how much I have learned about this project I will answer some questions regarding the audience and type of content in my QRG.

Hunt, Tara. "Audience." 9/9/2013 via Flick.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. 

Audience
Who is my audience?
The audience of my QRG are my classmates and my instructor. This means my audience is made up of a large group of people with varying prior knowledge on GMOs. Also, because my audience is so diverse in what kind information they find interesting I need to make sure the information is accessible for those who prefer statistics and narratives.

What are their values and expectations?
The expectations of my audience is regardless of their prior knowledge or opinions on the GMOs they finish reading the QRG feeling more informed about both sides of the debate. From our class discussions and from reading other drafts, the readers of these QRGs like facts to be supported and evidence to be abundant and clear. To satisfy the desire for this proof, I included hyperlinks in my QRG so my audience can see where I gathered my information from and check my facts.

How much information do I need to give my audience?
For my audience I think its fair to assume everyone has heard of genetically modified food before, therefore I will give a brief background on the technical side of GMOs, but not a full history. Also, the information I provide for my audience will focus more the reasons the controversy exists not all the specific statistics regarding what type and the amount of food that has been genetically modified.

What kind of language is suitable for my audience?
I think based on the audience I am writing for, the language and tone of my QRG should be more informal. Because my audience does not necessarily have a lot of experience talking about GMOs, a very technical vernacular will not make my writing easy to understand.

The tone should also be casual, but still informative. This tone will help in providing lots of information easily, while making it as easy to understand as possible. This tone should be used throughout the entire QRG.

Gustafson, Aaron. "@jasonspeaking at #rwdstudio: "If Content is King, Context is Queen"
4/30/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. 

Content 
What are the formatting requirements of the genre? Have I followed this restrictions?
Some of the conventions of a QRG include text writing in short blocks, subheadings, hyperlinking, and images. I believe that I have incorporated all of the above pieces in my QRG.

What are the content requirements for the assignment? Have they been reached?
Because the topics my classmates and I are writing about are so diverse, creating content restrictions that applies to all is very challenging.  But we are all writing about controversies and I believe each QRG should contain the opponents an proponents, the arguments for each side, the speakers from each side, and background on why the debate is relevant.

Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own ideas and voice?
I believe that my draft does reflect skills that were learned in the class and through the classwork. For example, when quoting a speaker, I applied skills in evaluating the credibility of the source and the speaker. Also, I am more familiar writing commentaries about pieces of literature, and in this English class I have experienced writing in a more informative and less biased style.

Have I addressed any grammatical issues that my teacher highlighted in class or in my previously-graded assignments?
We have yet to really highlight grammar issues in class, I feel that we have focused more on content. However, the classwork pointed out the importance of not mixing verb tenses in a sentence, and I have tried to eliminate this from my QRG.

Clarity, Part 1

In this post I identify the four main topics I choose to edit for in my QRG. The Rules for Writers textbook gave information on how to improve in these four areas, and below is my reflection about these different topics. 

Files, Adam. "File:Clarity-Zedd.png". 10/31/2014 via Commons.wikipedia.com.
Public Domain License. 

Active Verbs

In high school one of my English teachers really hated passive voice, so we spent weeks learning how to completely exclude it from our writing. When I saw active verbs listed in the cover of Rules for Writers, I wasn't surprised, but I did realize that they had slipped back into my writing. 

I agree that using active verbs helps make the sentences more clear by distinguishing a clear subject and linking the action to them. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that the book acknowledged that active voice, like passive voice, has a time and a place to be used.   

Wordy Sentences 

I typically struggle with keeping my sentences short and concise. I really enjoyed the table provided that showed some alternative phrases to use to try and cut out the unneeded words from different sentences.

I also found it very interesting that the book mentioned that word's connotations could be used to eliminate other descriptive words. One example provided in the book was "hurriedly scribbled" replaced with "scribbled" because scribbled implies fast writing.  

Mixing Constructions 

This one of many parts of grammar that I have always struggled with, which is terrible since the idea is very simple, in a sentence the verbs should all be in the same tense. I knew that writing in multiple tenses wasn't preferred, but I enjoyed that the book explained why.  

As writer we try to make our text as easy for the reader as possible. Similar to the other ideas in the book, mixed constructions gives more work to the reader as they try and decipher the the text. 

Parallel Ideas 

I have had teachers in the past talk about writing parallel sentences, but no one every gave an explanation why. From the Rules for Writers textbook I learned that presenting information in parallel ways make it easier for the reader to understand and read. 

The example that made the most sense to me referred to presenting information in a list. When giving a list of things the book suggested formatting the components separated by the commas in a similar manor. 

REFLECTION 
While peer editing I learned that some of my classmates also struggle in some of the same areas that I identified above. However, these topics are rather hard to edit for. In particular I found wordy sentences hard to identify as they are subjective to each reader, but I tried to give suggestions whenever I could.

I peer-edited Trey's QRG on F-35 Fighter Planes. While reading through his draft I tried to help with the formatting and including the conventions of a QRG. One example of trying to help make his sentences less wordy was when introducing one of his quotes. Because there is so much information to include in addition to the quote the sentence can start to feel like a run-on. His sentence read, "When Ashton Carter was head f procurement at the Pentagon, he noted that,"..." in reference to the F-35 program." I suggested moving the "in reference to the F-35 program" before the quote, to help it not get lost behind the quote and to make the sentence feel less wordy.

I also peer-edited Isabel's QRG on a Gluten-Free Diet. In her QRG I also tried to edit for wordy sentences. One sentence that stuck out to me was talking about why people get involved in the debate over gluten-free diets. Her sentence read, "The reality of the situation is this diet craze will phase along with the rest of them,..." When I read this sentence I didn't there was any obvious errors, but it was a little wordy and could be made more concise. I suggested that it could be changed to read, The reality is this diet craze will fade like its predecessors...

Thoughts on Drafting

In this blog post I will share my opinions on how helpful the textbook, A Student's Guide to First-Year Writing" is with tips for drafting. This book is geared towards writing essays, whereas I am working on a Quick Reference Guide. Because of this difference in genre, I do not believe all of the provided tips will be useful.  

ClkerFreeVectorImages. "Cherry Slice Fruit Desserts Baked Delicious" 9/20/2012 via Pixabay.
CCO Public Domain FAQ License.  

1. What parts of the book's advice on the above bulleted topics are helpful for writing in this genre? 

 Even with the difference in genre I believe that a topic sentence in still important in writing a           QRG. In a traditional essay the thesis sentence would typically be the last sentence in the                    introduction, but a QRG has the thesis sentence in the heading or the title. 

 An introduction isn't as critical in a QRG as in an essay. Because an essay is usually much                  longer and wordier than a Quick Reference Guide, emphasis on the Quick, the introduction                  usually sums up what will be discussed in the paper so the audience has an idea. However,                  QRG present the topic of the text in the title or heading and jump straight into the information. 

 Information organization is important for both genres. Because both are written with the idea              that they will be read the information needs to be presented in a way that the reader can                        understand the progression of ideas. 

 Because its meant to be a quick reference for the reader to get information a conclusion is just as         important as in an essay. If the reader has made it through the entire quick reference guide, they           may be overwhelmed by the quantity of information hat has been provided to them. Therefore a         conclusion is crucial so the reader has a take away from the QRG.  

   2. What parts of the book's advice on these topics might not be so helpful, considering the                 genre? 

 One aspect of the drafting process that was suggested in the textbook that would be of little use          in writing a Quick Reference Guide is the PIE format for writing paragraphs. The PIE format is          used to create very structured paragraphs that present a point, give examples (illustrations), and          explain the examples.

 While the formula is useful and thorough, the structure is not needed in the QRG. In a QRG the          paragraphs are much shorter than would allow for this much information. Also, QRGs are                   supposed to present non-biased information, the illustrations, and the reader can draw their own           conclusions. 

Therefore the formula for a QRG paragraph would be PI. 

Reflection: 
After reading Nick's post I realized there is more than one to interpret the tips given in the textbook. For example, I thought the tips on organization were there to help make sure the ideas were organized in a way that made sense, whereas he believed the same tips to be too constraining.

Also, in Jessica's post she also disagreed with the usefulness of the PIE format, but for different reasons. I don't like the PIE style because I think the reader should be presented with more information than opinion, but she didn't agree with the tips because they contradicted the genre conventions.

Areas for Improvement
1. The organization of my essay is definitely lacking. I think I need a better setup to how I present the information.

2. Thesis sentence. I don't think I included a thesis sentence in my QRG, and after reading about writing tips I think this will help improve my QRG.

3. The dreaded conclusion. I have always hated writing conclusions and at the moment my QRG does not have one at all. I think the conclusion will help my readers have a take-away opinion at the end.. 

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

For my quick reference guide I feel like I have a lot more information than I was able to squeeze into the guide. I worry that I was too specific in my details, but I am not entirely sure how or where to add more information. I am very open to comments on anything, everything helps, but I am particularly looking for any advice on formatting. Also, one of the biggest decisions I faced was deciding if it was more beneficial to discuss both sides of the argument at the same time or if I should focus one one group and then move onto the next. Thank you very any suggestions.

Here is my QRG.

Practicing Quoting

In this post I have depicted two quotes from two different sources. The sources take opposing sides of the debate against genetically modified organisms (GMO) in regards to the change in necessity for pesticides. 

In the following quotes the colors are to signal the following:

• blue highlights where the quote has been put into context
• green highlights the credibility of the author and the article
• purple highlights the signal phrase that introduces the quote
• red highlights where the quote has been altered to better fit my need

 

Hashimoto, Jayni. "Quote 1" 9/12/15 via Screenshot.

Hashimoto, Jayni. "Quote 2" 9/12/15 via Screenshot. 

QRGs: the Genre

1. What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide- seem to be? 
The list of conventions for a Quick Reference Guide seem to include a catchy title, images, hyperlinks, sub-titles, short and detailed text. Also, the writing tends to follow a question and answer style.

2. How are those conventions defined by the author's formatting and design choices?
In the article about the Sochi Opening Ceremony the subtitles were made of questions and the following text provided the answer, giving the QRG a distinctive "Q and A" format.

Whereas, all five examples of QRG contained lots of subtitles to break up the text, and images to help the reader understand what was being referenced and to illicit an emotional response.

3. What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?
Just like the name suggests QRGs seem to offer a lot of information on a single topic. The information is presented in a manor to make it easy to understand so the content can be comprehended quickly.

4. Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs?
I can see a similarity in audiences for the QRG on E-cigarettes and the financial crisis in Greece. Both of these articles seem to target a more serious audience that are looking for the facts regarding the respective subject.

However, the GamerGate, Sochi Opening Ceremony, and Bernie QRG appear to target a younger audience. The above articles have more casual tones and diction, and the format appears less structured and more casual.

5. How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?
I think the two biggest purposes for visual aids are to help in understand an idea and to get a reaction. The Sochi Olymics QRG, for example, uses the images to help contextualize the information. It reminds the reader of what they are explaining.

However, in the Crisis in Greece article, the images are used more to draw out an emotional response from the reader. Even the charts and graphs are used to create awe in the audience of the gravity of the situation.

Reflection 
Reading Tobin's post about the QRG genre made me realize how similar this genre is to what we're writing in--the blog. Kelly's post also helped me draw these conclusions when she mentioned how bullet points and timelines were common in the QRG, and I remembered in the blog as well.

Alyssa's post helped me take this connection one step farther. From her post I understood a lot about how the audience can influence the style in which the QRG is written in. And after reading about her thoughts on the audience I kind of think the QRG is like a subset of a blog post written without personal opinion for those looking for more information.

Cluster of My Controversy

In my cluster map I illustrated the main parties involved in the controversy. On the proponent side there are two distinct groups with different motivations. The first party is the business group who is in favor of genetically engineering food to increase their profits. The other group in favor of GMOs are the scientists and scientific advocates who like the genetic modification because of the advancements in the related technology. On the other side of the controversy are those against genetic engineering their food and they focus on the negative effects it has on humans and the environment.

Here's my cluster.

Hashimoto, Jayni. "Clutster Map". 9/12/15 via Screenshot.

Reflection:

Like Kyle I made my cluster map by separating the opponents and proponents, but after seeing Mehruba's map I no longer think I chose the most effective way to organize my ideas. Compared to Kyle's map I believe my cluster is rather confusing to look at, and it helps me when I go to write, but it is hard for anyone else. 

Overall, the next time I have to create a cluster map for more than just myself, I think I will change how I arrange my ideas to make the map easier to understand. 

Annotated Bibliography in ACS Stye

In this post I created an annotated bibliography according to the American Chemical Society Style for creating citations. This link shows an example of an annotated bibliography that I followed while creating mine. I apologize for the weird formatting, I was unable to get the formatting to work properly in Google Drive as well.

1. Abdessamad, A. Aouad Abdessamad on Twitter, 2015. Twitter. https://twitter.com/AouadAbdessamad/status/640307101936578560 (accessed Sep 6, 2015).

Aouad Abdessamad used Twitter as a platform to inform the readers. His tweet guides the reader to both his blog, and an article about genetically modified food. Though Twitter, in addition to other forms of social media, are typically used for a person to share their opinions, the two articles that were linked in the tweet give both sides of the genetically modified food making Aouad's comment a unique unbiased source, which can be used to contrast all of the other sources because it remains mostly partial. 

2. Braun, R. People's Concerns About Biotechnology: Some Problems And Some Solutions. J. of Biotech. [Online] 2002, 98, 3-8.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168165602000810 (accessed Sep 5, 2015). 

This is one of the few articles I was able to find that advocated for genetic modification of  plants. This article mentioned the benefit GMOs could have the world's food supply and claimed genetic modification was safe due to the lack of documented incidents. This article like the one from Scientific American will add interesting contrast to the plethora of articles against genetic modification. 

3. Gebreyes, R. Bill Nye Expains Why He Changed His Mind About GMOs, 2015. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/bill-nye-gmos-changed-mind_n_7245092.html. (accessed Sep 11, 2015).

        This purpose of this source was to connect the reader to an interview conducted by the Huffington Live with Bill Nye on his opinions on GMOs. This article will be very helpful to the creation of a Quick Reference Guide because it shows people using the media to talk about genetically modifying food. 

4. Latawiec, A. Amy Metcalf Latawiec on Twitter, 2015. Twitter.

         https://twitter.com/Amy_Danger/status/640229501369237506 (accessed Sep 6, 2015).

        Amy Latawiec's tweet was in response to other twitter users tweets. She is arguing against the growing discontent with the movement, "What's in our food". Using a post from Twitter will add a sample of the general public into the analysis. Twitter limits users to shorts messages, therefore the comment from Amy in concise, and easily describes her beliefs on the controversy. 

5. Madin, E. Genetically Engineered Salmon Pose Environmental Risks That Must Be Considered. BioScience. [Online] 2011, 61, 6-6.  http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/

        content/61/1/6.full (accessed Sep 5, 2015).

        The interesting thing about this article is its specific to an event in the genetic engineering food controversy. It pertains to the FDA considering allowing genetically altered fish to enter the regular environment, so its warnings against GMO are in response to an event. The context of this journal article will be helpful in adding context to the analysis of the controversy.  

6. McWaffle89. GMOs? Science on the subject rather than the BS from both sides, 2013. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ce3v4/gmos_science_on_the_               subject_rather_than_the_bs/ (accessed Sep 11, 2015). 

        This source was a comments thread started in the ScienceAsk section of Reddit. While the responses to the original question range from helpful to humorous, some of the information provided is scientific and provides good background of what GMOs are and why the controversy on them. This source will be the most useful in comparing information provided from other biased sources about GMOs. Because comment threads have more than one author, the source has more than one perspective and bias.

7. Mercola. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) - Myths and Truths [Video]. September 20, 2012. Youtube. 2012. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxscQY7X0mtnaCbkGTjZ17g  (accessed Sep 11, 2015). 

        This particular source was created with the purpose of getting California residents to vote  against a GMO related proposition. As a result of its purpose, this video was very biased against the use of GMO. The source employed several type graphics including photographs, graphs and charts, and artistic renditions. This source will be useful in creating a Quick Reference Guide because it gives lots of detailed information on the history of genetically engineering plants. Because it is a biased source, it will be most effective when used in combination with a source biased on the opposite side. 

8. Realtruth.org,. Genetically Engineered Foods “ Why the Controversy?:, n.d. Real Truth.  http://www.realtruth.org/articles/223-gefwtc.html (accessed Sep 5, 2015).

This article by Real Truth is trying to inform the reader about the controversy surrounding the genetically engineered food, while trying to persuade the reader against the genetically altered organisms. Real Truth focuses on countering every claim made by those in favor of GMO with what it believes is the truth. This article will be helpful in the future as it gives examples of possible scenarios that could result because of the GMOs in the environment, and quotes like this could give an interesting perspective to an argument.

9. Ronald, P. Plant Engineers Sow Debate, 2014. Scientific American.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plant-engineers-sow-debate/ (accessed Sep 5, 2015).

        The article "Plant Engineers Sow Debate, published in Scientific American works to enlighten the reader about the benefits of genetically modifying plants. Ronald  highlights the scientific advancements that have allowed for scientists to modify food to be more beneficial for humans. Because this article provides a very different attitude on genetic engineering food, it will be helpful in contrasting the information from the other sources. 

10. Tarasova, A. Why are you anti-GMO?, Tumblr. http://annietarasova.tumblr.com/post/

        121007730613/why-are-you-anti-gmo. (accessed Sep 11, 2015). 

        This particular Tumblr post was used to communicate the thoughts of the user, Annie Tarasova, on the topic of GMO (genetically modified organisms). The post focused on presenting evidence against the production of food containing GMOs, and the consumption of such food. The major benefit to using a source such as this one is that the article presents the opinion of part of the public. Also, the post gave links to the resources it used to gather data, so a correlation can be drawn between the reaction and emotions that different sources illicit.


Reflection: 
From reading a couple of my classmates bibliographies, who also did not use MLA, made me realize how much I really dislike the MLA style for citations.

I was able to find Mehruba's post who also used the ACS style for her bibliography. As expected, our bibliographies look rather similar because we used the same citation style. I really like using the ACS style as I think it easily displays all the information and is very to the point.

After reading Brandon's bibliography in AMA style I realized that all of the citations are very similar to each other. In my bibliography and his the citation starts with the author and moves into the title of the article. Other included information is the date the source was accessed, the URL, and the name of the Journal or website the information originated from. 

Ideology in My Controversy

In this post I will be describing the groups involved in the controversy of genetically engineered food.

Solar, Jumanji. "Debate Energético" 1/20/2011 via Flickr. 
Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. 

1. Who is involved?
On one side of the argument are the companies that sell the genetically engineered seeds, and it seems like the republican politicians are favoring this side with trying to end the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. However, this side also has people who believe in the cause for good reasons, like the scientists who believe genetically engineered food is better for food supply safety. However, this argument has its opponents that believe in non-GMO (non- Genetically Modified Organisms).

2. Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?
Coco-Cola, Pepsi, and General Mills are some of the big opponents against the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which would require the need to label food that has been genetically modified.

3. What kind of social/cultural/economical/political power does each group hold?
The proponents of GMO seem to hold most of the cards. They have the money to lobby the government in their favor, and the size and manpower to do so. However, the opponents hold the general public on their side.

4. What resources are available to different positions?
 Similar to what is stated above, the big companies for GMO have the resources in terms of money, political abilities, and manpower, but the opponents have the desire of the general population. Lawmakers can only choose the desire of the companies over their constituents for a short period of time, so having the American public will be a large force.

5. What does each group value? 
The different parts of the proponents value the scientific advancements that have allowed them to make the genetic alterations to crops, and the profits gained. The opponents value knowing what is in the food they eat and having a choice to choose non-GMO foods.

6. What counts as evidence for the different positions?
The proponents claim they have seen no scientific evidence of genetically modified food causing harm to those that consume it. Whereas, the opponents cite occurrences like the "golden rice" that was designed to be more beneficial than regular rice, but was in fact inferior.

7. Is there a power differential between the groups? 
I think deciding where the power lies depends on how someone measures power. To those against GMO, the idea of having the popular opinion of the general public is the power for their side. However, those in favor of genetically engineering food, hold more formal power.

8. Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups? 
 I believe the scientists who are in favor of GMO share some ideology  with those against genetically modifying food. Both of these groups want food that is better for the consumer, they just differ on how to get the better food, and what classifies as superior.

9. Do the various groups listen to each other?
I think there is some communication between the groups in that the group fighting genetic modification and those supporting it. The opposing group is conscious of the steps of their opponents, in fact they launched the Just Label It campaign, in response to the push to end the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In the post below I will analyze the credibility of two different twitter posts about genetically engineered food.

Aouad Abdessmad 

Hashimoto, Jayni. "Twitter 1" 9/5/15 via Screenshot. 

Would you be on Catfish?
Aoudd Abdessmad is a photographer as it states in his twitter bio, and he has a Panoramio account full of pictures from Morocco where he lives, making it easy to believe that he is a real person

Location 
As stated above and in his Twitter bio, Abdessmad does not live in the United States where the big genetically engineered food controversy is taking place. However, by Morocco does not make use of the genetically modified seeds for crops which gives him a unique perspective on the conflict.

Network 
Currently on Twitter Adessmad has 11.1 thousand followers. He also maintains a blog called Backyard Homesteading which focuses on gardening. Most of his Twitter followers are just regular people he is followed by Earthly Choice a food company dedicated to providing healthy and good food.

Context 
The information he tweets can be confirmed as he frequently tweets the URL to the webpage he is talking about. Therefore, all his claims can be followed back to the source from where he got the information.

Contextual Updates 
He regualarly posts about genetically modified food, and gardening. With all of these posts he does include the link for the reader to follow if they want to corroborate his claim.

Age
Abouad Abdessamad joined Twitter in January 2009, and has accumulated over 11 thousands followers in that time. Because of the duration and popularity of his account, I believe that gives Abdessmad some credibility as a social media source.

Amy Metcalf Latawiec 

Hashimoto, Jayni. "Twitter 2". 9/5/15 via Screenshot. 

Would you be on Catfish?
Answer? No, she would not be on Catfish. Amy Latawiec has a website and is a lecturer in the English department at Wayne State, where she is also a Ph.D. candidate.

Location?
Amy lives in Michigan, where Wayne State University can be found. Michigan is not an agriculturale state, therefore, Amy would depend on the crops grown else where in the country that could be transferred to Michigan. I believe it would be harder for Amy to have easy access to farmer's markets and small farms, where she could get not genetically engineered food.

Network
 Latawiec has just over 600 followers, including Only Organic and other fitness related accounts. These health related followers corresponds with the information in her Twitter bio where she lists being a nutrition enthusiast and a group fitness instructer.

Context and Contextual Updates 
Unlike the Twitter user above, Amy's tweets are all over the place and about random subjects. This is most definitely a personal account as she talks about her personal life. In fact, just from scrolling through her Twitter feed, I am not seeing very many post about genetically modified food.

Age
This Twitter user joined in July of 2007 and has 12.8 thousand tweets to date. With this high volume of tweets I would conclude that this is not a new account.

From my Storify.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

In this blog post I will evaluate two academic sources regarding the controversy around genetically engineering food. 

Borewicz, Slawek. "Scientific Journal icon" 10/31/2014 via Commons. Wikipedia.
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.  

People’s concerns about biotechnology: some problems and some solution

The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about the benefits of genetically modified crops in creating food security, and of the lack of reported health concerns. This article also talks about the political side of this controversy and the disconnect between scientist, politicians, and the general public.

This article was published in the Journal of Biotechnology in the first edition of the 98^th volume. The given publication date is July of 2001.

The works cited list includes Biotechnology- Transgenic crops in natural habitats, Urban myths of organic farming, and Engineering the probtiamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm, which are all are also articles from science journals. 

The author of the article is R. Braun. I was unable to find a first name, but I corroborated him as a reliable source because he has authored many other articles on Web of Science. 

I believe the intended audience is people who are interested in the impact that science has on politics and business. From his other articles, R. Braun seems to focus on a connection between the technical field and public fields like politics. 

I found this article on Web of Science with the use of keywords like genetically engineered, food, and crops. 

Genetically Engineered Salmon Pose Environmental Risks That Must Be Considered 

This article is written as the FDA considered introducing genetically engineered fish into the environment. The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of the potential risks associated with the FDA's decision. 

This article was published in the 61st edition of BioScience in January of 2011. The article was published by Oxford University Press for the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Included in the references are news articles from the New York Times, and other journals from BioScience.

The author of the article is Elizabeth M. P. Madin, who works with the Department of Environmental Sciences in the University of Technology-Sydney in Australia.

I think the article is intended for anyone who was familiar with the decision that the FDA was making. The article was technical enough to give good, detailed information, however, it was not overly complicated to make it hard to understand.

I located this article using the database, JSTOR, with keywords like genetically modified, food, and harm to the consumer. 

Evaluation of General Sources

Genetically Engineering (GE) Food

Illuminating9_11. "GMO%20CORN". 5/21.2009 via Flickr.
Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License. 

The Real Truth

The URL suggests that this source may be credible because the “.org” states this this information is from an organization as opposed to being for commercial use. However, the online magazine is published by The Restored Church of God, which I believe influences the perspective and bias of the information presented.

The Real Truth website does not present a specific author of the article. By not giving an author, it raised suspicion on the credibility on the information in the article, as there is no way to determine the qualification of the writer.

The website does not present a date of publication, nor a last updated date. There are no hyperlinks in the article, and the only links present open up note boxes that include bible verses. However, the article does make reference to where it pulled its data from, allowing the reader the ability to follow up.

The purpose of this article is to inform the reader on what the genetically engineered food controversy is about. However, the article is written biased against the genetic engineering of food, making its claims less objective and therefore, less trustworthy.

The article from Real Truth does use graphics, particularly graphs and charts that display statistics. I believe that the graphs are used to build credibility, but statistics are easy to manipulate and with the obvious bias present in the article, I think the graphs are used more to further the writer’s claim against GE.  

If the bias in this article is able to persuade the readers against GE of food, the companies who profit from genetic engineered food would lose profit. I think the writer thinks that the reader’s health will benefit from not consuming the altered food.

Scientific American 

Compared to the previous website, at first glance the URL makes this site look less reliable, however, Scientific American is a popular website because of its factuality and attention to details. Therefore, the audience and motive behind the website makes this source more reliable than the last.

The author of this article is clearly stated at the top of the article as Pamela C. Ronald. Dr. Ronald received her Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, and teaches in the Department of Plant Pathology and the Genome Center at UC Davis in addition to being the Director of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy. All of her education and experience makes her qualified to talk about genetically engineering plants.

Scientific America gives May 1^st, 2014 as the date of publication, and no updated date is given.

The purpose of this article is to inform the reader on the benefits that genetically engineered food can have for the consumer. Also, unlike the last article, Scientific American, does not present both sides of the controversy—they only help their side.

Minus a single picture in the top of the article, Scientific American includes no relevant picture. I saw relevant because the picture they did include does not add anything to their defense. The graphics portray no statistics, graphs, or charts or even graphic do draw emotion from their readers.

This article is very biased for genetic engineering of plants. This bias is present by the author being a scientist who conducts this research, instead of a reporter, and the only evidence presented is in favor of GE.