Thesis Statement

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3143/3031106727_793de1d8d4_o_d.png

This is my thesis statement for my rhetorical analysis of my essay. I argue that the most effective way to reach patients who overuse antibiotics to feel they are staying the healthiest is to educate them with a paper in the style of a TED Talk; I utilize a combination of logos and pathos so patients can understand how antibiotics work, and when it is an appropriate to utilize them.

Background Research

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7207/6886478111_8bd0381e95.jpg

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1S4Uncupmb-ntJcqhAoKcwnLBjHMLeACVww3MUKKCW2I/edit?usp=sharing

Initial Thoughts about my Audience for my Public Argument

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Antibiotic_sensitvity_and_resistance.JPG

     Last week in class we thought about our audience, who we are addressing as we write our essays. Being a part of the YouTube and Social Media era, I assumed everything was for a rather general audience. Anyone who found this article would read it. However, after thinking about the term 'general audience' I realized this does not exist. Everyone who reads a paper, watches a video, or listens to a song will have an opinion coming in, and form an opinion as they are using the medium. The general audience will disagree with itself, there is not a single thing we agree on. From the type of flag we fly above our house, to the way we treat our fellow humans, there will be disagreement. From Equality, Freedom of Speech, and Wars, to songs, movies, and books, we all have an opinion. This 'general audience' is a myth. 

     All races, gender, age groups, will be effected by this Public Argument. Mostly people who are constantly prescribed antibiotics or people who cannot afford to eat organic food all the time will be targeted by my argument. Middle class Americans could be considered the primary audience, because thy tend to purchase less organic food (due to cost). All humans that can or will come in contact with bacteria should be conscious about the effect of antibiotic overuse in society. According to some preliminary research, Americans who have children and elderly should be more the target audience for antibiotic abuse in the population, as they are more likely to abuse this medicine. Stakeholders in this argument include farmers and scientists for the reduction of antibiotics. On the other side, we have misinformed doctors and big pharmaceutical companies that will influence the argument the other way. People who are against Western Medicine will not find this article useful, because they are not part of the issue. Also, farmers that do not use artificial hormones or chemicals will not be effected by this in any way. 

     My audience should be somewhat familiar with this issue. The topic has been discussed before, as many animals have not been treated with growth hormones after some studies done in the early 2000's. However, the antibiotic abuse in human health is a little more recent. Many people do not realize how close we are to being unable to use antibiotics. Many efforts are being made to find a different cure for infections, as bacteria become resistant to all forms of antibiotics. 

     Anyone who views TED Talks or enjoys learning through videos will encounter this argument. Whether they agree or disagree, another audience that will come into contact with this form of information are stakeholders against the spread of this information. Pharmaceutical companies and some doctors might not want this information shared with their patients. 

     These negative stakeholders may become hostile in this argument. They may try to create facts including a decrease in antibiotic abuse, or no correlation between antibiotic consumption through food and dangers to health. Although this information is untrue, anyone not fully educated in this field could easily be persuaded against my argument. 

     My audience would need to have a basic understanding of how antibiotics work, and why they are being abused. The audience also needs to understand that antibiotics are only used to treat bacterial infections, not virus', fungi, or parasites. Finally, an understanding of how antibiotic resistance is achieved would be ideal, but this can be explained in the TED Talk as well. 

My Proposed Public Argument

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/A_course_of_green_cefalexin_pills.jpg/1280px-A_course_of_green_cefalexin_pills.jpg

     I have no idea what I want to make my public argument about. I was thinking I would discuss the effects of overuse of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture, or the positive effects of Genetically Modified Organisms. I want to write either a scientific journal, or a TED Talk, as they both sound interesting.
     If I were to discuss the use of the abuse of antibiotics, I would probably lean towards a TED Talk. My message would be along the lines of "Antibiotic abuse is on the rise in America, and is having a negative effect on the food we eat, our bodies on a macroscopic and microscopic level, and the pathogens that we are trying to fight off". The message here is that we are abusing antibiotics, and nature is doing its best to adapt. Puberty is occurring earlier in children, because they are being exposed to growth hormones. Another effect is the depletion of good bacteria in our microbiome, leading to dangerous effects. Finally, I would talk about how bacteria are adapting to fight back, and nullify the effects of all antibiotics, (like methycillin resistant Staph and such). I feel like the audience for this talk would be Americans who consume antibiotics, either to fight off infection or unintentionally through their food. The purpose would be to inform the audience about what is occurring in nature, in their bodies, and emphasize the urgency of the situation.
     If I discuss the positive effects of GMO's, I would write a scientific journal entry. I would target how the use of GMO's has saved some plant species, how GMO's are not the cause for stress in the US, rather its the chemicals present in our food that is a cause for concern, and how GMO's could save lives in other countries, if we were less skeptical about science. This article would be aimed at skeptics in the scientific community, and skeptics who know/read the scientific journal I would be writing for. The purpose of this would be to persuade an audience that not everything we read is true or false, it requires its own interpretation of the truth to draw their own conclusions, only after being presented with both sides. I could always use the TED Talk as well, but I feel I need more information to write a 10-15 minute talk about GMO's.

Analysis of a Sample Public Argument

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Brewer,_campaign_rally_August_2014.jpg

     For this blog, I will be analyzing the "Letter to the Honorable Janice K. Brewer", written by Kassandra Esmeralda Diaz. I found this to be the most interesting of the three, because its an actual application of rhetorical analysis to something freshman at the U of A can succeed at doing.
     The tone of Kassandra's letter is serious. She is focused on addressing the problem of Medicaid cutbacks in the Arizona budget, and lets her reader know she is serious. She conveys this tone by writing about one specific point in her argument, and does not deviate from her point. She also conveys her tone by using professional language such as "A second approach" or "affordable safety-net program".
     Kassandra used the formal letter to correctly address her audience. For example, Kassandra addresses her audience using a proper Dear..... heading like a formal letter would. She addresses the Governor as Governor Brewer, instead of Mrs. Brewer or "Eh yo J. Brew".  Kassandra also breaks each paragraph into its own cause or effect, which makes reading the letter easier for the audience. Kassandra ends her letter correctly, with a sincerely, and her name. She may have wanted to include contact information under her name, so her questions could be addressed via email or mail.
     Kassandra's ethos is established through her final line and first paragraph. Kassandra ends her letter with "Kassandra Diaz, College of Science, Biology Department". This would be effective if she was writing about an invasive species or migration patterns in Arizona, but she is attacking a social issue outside her field. In the first paragraph, she establishes the fact that she is a freshman at the U of A. However, she does not use any other form of ethos to persuade her audience that her goals should be attained.
     The overall claim in Kassandra's letter is, the $1 billion cuts made in Governor Brewers plan should be rethought as they have a negative impact on residents of Arizona. The first think Kassandra addresses is the negative effects to Medicaid and AHCCCS that this budget cut has made. After that Kassandra goes into discussing different approaches to other areas of the budget that could be cut, instead of healthcare. She discusses three different approaches to the budget, and urges that Governor Brewer work towards these solutions instead of her current one.
      The call-to-action that Kassandra uses urges Governor Brewer to reconsider her budget. Kassandra uses the sentence "I urge you to reconsider your cuts made to Medicaid budget and consider one of the above alternatives" as her call to action. This call-to-action is good, but it is not very persuasive. Rather something along the lines of, "As a resident of the state of Arizona" or something that better establishes her ethos to really emphasis importance in her call to action. It is clear that Kassandra wants to see a change, but her sentence is a bit weak at best.
     Throughout this analysis, I have made suggestions to Kassandra. In addition, I would tell her to develop her ethos better, maybe talk about someone she knows struggling to stay healthy on Medicaid, or make it more person. Just stating that you have a certain background in a field or are part of a certain group does NOT establish a credible ethos. Also, I would tell her to revise her call-to-action, and make it more persuasive. She uses the correct formatting and has her ideas organize in a great way, its just the end that needs a little work.
   

Reflection on Essay #2

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/NICO_looks_at_himself.jpg

     

Essay number two is finally done. Its crazy to think that we are halfway through our freshman semester, and that there is only a few more months until finals. From this writing process, I have learned a lot about myself. First, I generalize my statements too mach, and talk in the first person. I need to work on making clear concise statements to an audience bigger than just myself. I tried to accomplish this as much as possible, but did not get everything cleaned up as much as I want it to.
     I would say my essay is more successful then my last paper. I focused more on the topic and had a more concise thesis statement then last essay, and found more information to back up what I was saying. I also found in this essay, I actually knew what rhetoric I was supposed to address, rather then rambling on with facts and pointless information. If I could have done anything differently, it would have been finishing my rough draft prior to Friday's class. Maybe I can chunk out 15-20 minutes of my time each day as opposed to cramming one night, to really help myself feel more confident about my writing.
     Throughout writing this essay, I learned that rhetoric and rhetorical analysis are important in persuading and audience to listen to you. Even if its in their best interest to listen to what you have to say, not all people listen to speakers. Many people are discredited, even if they have valid information. Its in the way they author/director/blogger/company addresses a person addresses their audience that success can be achieved. I could apply this to any of my other classes. In my gen ed class, we read pieces of published literature from scientific sources throughout the environmental and sustainability community.
     The lessons I've learned about rhetoric and rhetorical analysis will be useful in writing my senior year, and writing for grants and scientific journals. For instance, when applying for a research grant, you must know the SOAPSTone of the group you are writing to. If you want money to fund a project on a new cancer drug, you probably do not want to apply for a holistic research grant. Also, if you are writing and trying to convince a group of scientists that your research is accurate and justifiable, you would say so. You would use a persuasive and serious tone, and direct your paper at a specific group of individuals.