English 101 Blog

I beleive that when I apply for a job and give my resume it will be a lot similar to that of the writing process. I feel that I will still need to plan out what I am going to write, get a peer to look over it, and revise my previous thoughts. After all this is done I believe that my resume will be finished, and I believe that this writing process will help me submit a solid job application. I understand that this formula can be used for other styles of work; however, I am excited to use this on a resume.

The most challenging assignment for me was the rhetorical analysis. I have never written one before and the rough draft I had was terrible. I wasn’t too sure how to revise from the rough draft and ended up doing pretty solid after the peer reviewing. It was really challenging to remain unbiased while critiquing another author’s work. My writing has improved overall because of learning to outline and actually brainstorm before writing about a topic is helpful. My writing has gotten more precise and to the point than before. I used to not write rough drafts and just wing the final and hit submit. Now, I redo a paper as needed so it gets better.

A good source is one that is credible and has all of the facts backing it up. The most important thing i have taken away from learning about checking sources is that the bias of the writer means a lot. This knowledge makes me look deeper to who is actually writing the text and makes me look more carefully at the meaning behind words. This information will keep me looking at the source of where certain source’s sources are coming from.

The main idea of my groups article was focused on saving the planet and how we can use the ocean to help do so. It explains lots of key evidence like using wind farms offshore and using generators off currents. Lots of things could be explained further like the farms for seaweed and oysters. The author may have just said what they did thinking everyone knew what they were talking about. I think the offshore wind farms and generators on the currents could be useful to us so I’m glad the author provided good information on those. A counter argument for this would be that most of the solutions mentioned are not very cost effective. But since it is saving the planet it should not matter.

I found a picture of a polar bear on a tiny block of melting ice. This picture was to raise awareness for climate change. The picture pertains to people who are unaware of how serious climate change is. The photographer uses pathos by capturing a sad helpless polar bear. The white polar bear stands out because of the dark ocean background, so the focus is solely on the polar bear and the ice. Also the polar bear is front and center of the photo which makes the animal impossible to miss. Also the polar bear takes up the whole image. Its not far away to the point where the audience can't tell what animal it is. This image reflects my understanding of our topic because I love animals and I love our planet and this image combines both and is able to show a series problem. The picture caught my attention so I'm sure it will catch others.

In my article the author included only one quote, “blue carbon”. They used this to explain a phenomenon with a certain type of pollution. I feel as if she did not go over the quote very well, I feel as if she wanted to start her own movement from her own ideas and words. For this reason she is not seen quoting anything but phases throughout the entire article. 

When I think about a time that my paper was peer reviewed I remember usually only getting positive feedback. This is great but also does not help. Some people are great at peer reviews but others are not much help at all. Some suggestions that were most helpful for me was to connect the thesis to the body paragraphs and make sure it all flows together. This really helps me focus on each paragraph at a time. The least helpful suggestion that I have received was to just submit my rough draft and hope for the best. That could sometimes work out but its always best to revise it before you submit. 

In the article I read about Reviving traditional hemp economies it used the rhetorical appeals throughout the article. The article used logos by explaining and giving statistics about the economy and the information about the benefits the natives might receive. It used pathos by connecting to the reader on an emotional level by telling us how the native people have been taken advantage of and are not taken seriously. The author used ethos by her being an activist for sustainable tribal economies. With that being said she has strong opinions and feelings towards this certain topic. I would say logos is used more in this article. The author uses a few statistics, mostly facts, and some other quantitative data. I think the use of logos was successful. It effectively backs the authors argument and further shows that native people are being treated poorly and when it comes to the hemp industry, that is their chance to have high paying jobs. 

I would say my article used logos the most too. Seeing as how our articles are related to the climate and sustainability, I would say that the authors were smart in using lots of data, statistics, and examples to get their point across. Readers like to be convinced on why they should do something, and science is a good way to do it!