Untitled

Now that I know this information I will start to look out for red flags that might mean the source isn’t credible. If I read a source that I don’t think is credible I will look at the things that made me believe this and review them to decide if I should use the source or not. When looking on the web for sources I’m going to look at official sites first then, if needed, I will branch out to other sites that I can make sure are credible sources.

- A counter argument could be that the press is only reporting the information they are given from their sources.

In my article the author uses a quote from the mayor of Sacramento. She introduced the quote by talking about how the mayor adjourned a public meeting and then she went on to say “saying he was “concerned about safety.” After the use of this quote the author goes on to talk about how protests are usually treated as disruptive and protestors’ concerns are minimized. She was focusing on the word usage so in this situation it played well with the argument. I don’t think I would use this tactic in my writing because it wouldn’t work with my argument.

Suggestions I found helpful from peer revision was to spend more time figuring out the structure of my writing. A suggestion that didn’t help is when people switch out a word for a synonym. I get it may sound better but some words are used for a reason. The thing I dislike the most about peer review is the peer part. I don’t like when other people read my writing because I’m not the best at it. Even if I don’t like other people reading my writing I can appreciate what peer revision can do for me and how a new set of eyes can see mistakes and issues that I can’t.

I think the author used ethos and pathos more than logos. Her credibility coupled with the emotion that are felt about the BLM movement got her point across about the press. I believe her tactic was successful.

Rhetoric can be used to persuade an audience and convince them to believe what the author is telling them. Rhetoric makes me think of insincerity so it has a negative connotation for me. Rhetorical analysis can be useful to deduce if the author is being sincere or is misleading the audience. By looking at the types of evidence, claims, the purpose of the writing and the intended audience rhetorical analysis can give a better picture of what the author intends the work to do.

During our first project I started the writing process with a first draft. This first draft was horrible so when I went to do a second draft I did revisions as well as fixed grammar mistakes. When I was done with the second draft I revised it even more and moved things around to make it flow better. Having multiple drafts was the most useful aspect of my writing process. I would like to improve my planning and brainstorming because it will make the writing portion easier to tackle.

Some advice I have received over the course of my academic life has been to not procrastinate. Many people have given me this advice because I am a chronic procrastinator. When I actually listen to the advice and get my work done before the due date my life is much more stress free and I am not rushing through my work just to turn something in. The longer I procrastinate the higher the chance is of my work not being up to par.

I believe the purpose of reading and writing is to gain knowledge and share it as well.