Reflection of Project III

Prabhu B. "Spectacular Reflections" 2007
Public Domain

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to the next?

After reviewing my original document, I found that my argumentation style was beginning to skew. Instead keeping with the refutation argumentation concepts, I started to propose solutions to the issues, support some of the claims made by the article I was reviewing its points, or just going off on tangents. I stuck with the refutation strategy as seen in the quote below.

Ex. The fact in the matter is that Harmon and other anti-sequencing authors are misinformed or misinterpreting the science itself. Why is Harmon and the sequencing opposition misinformed? The most reasonable assumption would be that these opponents are victims of “pop science,” the blind acceptance of facts or fear of new science that has been relentlessly cycled through mass media.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

I kept my original thesis. I found that if I kept to the point I listed while brainstorming I won't have to revise my argumentation style. I think that was the real issue with my draft. I had a thesis that clearly indicated a refutation style argument; but I just didn't stick with the points.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

Although I did not change my thesis, I did reconsider my audience. I couldn't write an article that used a series of complex statistics to support my claims. Instead I used emotion an ethical appeals in order to indicate the loop holes in my opponent's argumentation. I realized that my audience was the general middle class American who does have a in depth knowledge of gene mapping, so I kept with the basics.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

I think it increases/strengthens my credibility, as I write to inform the reader in the strongest way possible. It would be unethical, moreover ridiculous to bombard my reader with complicated statistics on an issue they won't research further into.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

I will inform the reader in the strongest way possible. It would be ridiculous to bombard my reader with complicated statistics on an issue they won't research further into. Plus, my writing style mirrors a TIME magazine article. It should be simple, visually appealing, and relatively easy to read.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

I kept with my normal sentence structure. I found that is was simple enough for the general reader to follow but also included enough information to support my claims. Normally my sentences were designed to look like the example below.

Ex. However the manuscript eventually shifts from research and data oriented subject matter to the basic theory of genome mapping. That theory states, in layman's terms, that there will come a time where it will be necessary for the human race to engineer its own DNA as its fundamental properties will stand as a limitation to human progress.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

If the reader can understand the topic and issue with less academic vocabulary and more emotional appeals in terms of rhetoric, than a greater portion of my audience will understand the point I am trying to make and support my claims.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

No, I kept with the style the TIME magazine company used and the final result looked like an extended/special edition of a TIME magazine report.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

I feel that the draft I create will always be second rate to the final product. I realized that any brainstorming writing I usually make when I want to quickly create a document for this project is not as great or organized compared to a document that I revised for hours and monitored the document's style.