Reflection on Project 3

In this post I will be reflecting on the public argument I created for Project 3. I will conduct my reflection by answering the questions posed in Writing Public Lives.

Simon. "Laos Tree Water Reflection Mirroring Southeast" 11/19/2011 via Pixabay.
CCO Public Domain/ FAQ License. 

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
From my first draft to my second draft I made significant changes as I switched the type of argumentative paper I was writing. After writing my first draft I saw that my attempt at a causal argument was not effective, and after my conference I decided that an evaluative argument would be more effective.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
Because I changed what type of paper I would be writing, my thesis changed from trying to identify the causes of fracking to establishing that fracking could be improved by changing how fracking is done.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
All of the changes that I made resulted from a shift in the purpose I wanted my paper to have. I shifted purpose because I decided that this new purpose would allow my argument to be more effective.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
I think all of these changes, especially my change in purpose makes me more credible as an author because now I have an argument where I can give my own view/perspective on instead of just repeating someone else's view.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
I think these changes help me better reach my audience. Because I wrote for an environmental blog, all of the readers are already environmentalists to some degree, so they most likely have opinions on fracking before reading my post. So, I am presenting hopefully some new information that will interest them.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I think between my drafts I did not change the sentence style or structure very much. Even though I made some dramatic changes to the type and purpose of my writing, I did not change my audience or where I wanted to publish.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
I think my purpose is much clearer to my audience because now I am trying to present new information to my audience that will hopefully change their opinion on fracking instead of giving them information they most likely already know.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
No, the genre and publishing area did not change, so the conventions stayed the same.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
I think this project has made me realize that I prefer to analyze an existing concept, similar to the evaluation we did in project 3. I feel like this is an area where I am able to make a convincing argument.