Reflection on Open Letter Draft

For the peer revision process I revised Clay and Lauren's drafts of their letter. 

1. Did you demonstrate an ability to think about your writing and yourself as a writer?
Yes, I reflected on my writing process and discussed what aspects were very helpful and what did not work for me. I shared how I can see myself as a writer in the future in the field of science when it comes to writing and publishing research papers. There were a couple significant moments during the semester where I had "moments" that really changed and improved my writing skills and these were also discussed in the letter.

2. Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments, or concepts you have learned?
Yes, I analyzed project 2 because this project was where I felt I learned the most and had the most impactful experiences during the project. I shared how this project pushed me to break away from the strict guidelines that were drilled into my head during high school. I learned how to be more creative and take risks with the help of Sean's advice during office hours and the hard work payed off. 

3. Did you provide concrete examples from your own writing?
For the project mentioned above, Project 2, I provided hyperlinks to my drafts as well as the assignment  sheet. I am also going to add hyperlinks to the post where I talked about my calendar reflection to give concrete examples when I discuss how I did a good job sticking to my plan for time management during the semester. Also, peer review was very helpful for me throughout the semester on all of the projects so I hyperlinked to an assignment that outlined the directions for peer review. 

4. Did you explain why you made certain choices and why these choices were effective?
This area could use some improvement in my letter, because I don't think I explained completely why the I made the choices I did. As far as time management, I did explain that I planned to work on assignments in the morning before my first class because I had the time and I don't mind getting up early. I also explained how it is important to understand how to analyze genres and determine conventions of a genre because I will need these skills when I have to write new forms of work like research publications. 

5. Did you use specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process?
Yes, I used specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process like genre, conventions, drafts, peer review, and rhetorical analysis. I can improve on this area and include more specific terms to talk about my writing process in my letter. 

Farthromi, Ramdlon"Writer." 20 Jan. 2015. via Pixabay. Creative Commons. 

Draft of Open Letter

Here is the draft of my letter! I would love feedback on whether or not I am even on the right track, I was confused what exactly to talk about in the letter. Other than that general comments are great, thanks!

"Writing Postcard." Nov. 2015 via Pixabay. Creative Commons. 

Reflecting More on My Writing Experiences

In this post I will be responding to questions that will help me reflect further on my writing experiences. 

1. What were the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?
My biggest challenge was breaking from the strict writing structure that was drilled into my head during high school english courses. The writing pieces and genres involved taking risks and breaking from traditional essay format writing. This was hard at first to change my writing style, but eventually I embraced it and learned how to write more effectively. 

2. What did you learn this semester about your own time managment, writing and editorial skills?
I learned that I have really good time management, I am good at getting things done early and not waiting until the last minute. My writing skills have definitely improved but I still have to work really hard to produce good work. 

3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.
I have learned how to analyze pieces of work and determine the conventions of a genre. With this analyzing I can then write my own work in the genre. This is important in becoming a better writer because you can write more clearly and effectively if you follow the conventions of a genre. This is also important when I have to write in different genres in the future like in the field of science. 

4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?
I am going to work on my research skills. This is especially important for me because the career I want to pursue is research. While I want to the laboratory research in the science field, this still involves outside research and writing and publishing papers. I will also have to learn the genre and conventions of publishing science research. Lastly, I hope that the revision process will become easier for me as I work on in. 

5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H? 
My most effective moment was writing the rhetorical analysis essay. One aspect of this that was very effective was talking with Sean and realizing that I need to be pushed to take greater writing risks and deigning deeper into making connections between the information in the article and the way the author conveyed his message. This was my most successful piece because I put so much effort into both of these aspects that he wanted me to work on and it paid off. This was my greatest stride in developing my writing skills in this class. 

6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H? 
I struggled with the quick reference guide. This was difficult for me because the topic that I chose was almost too broad. This made it difficult to analyze the groups and opinions involved in the stem cell controversy. I did my best in following the requirements in writing a QRG but I felt too restricted in the content. 

Sharma, Abhi. "Books HD." 27 Aug. 2007 via Flickr. Creative Commons. 

Revising My Writing Process

In this post I will be reflecting on two earlier posts, my writing process and calendar reflection, and I will be looking at how my writing and time management skills have changed or stayed the same. 

As far as my writing process, I am still not a very confident writer and this became more evident during the course. I would produce what I felt was a very solid draft and then when I would get peer review or help from Sean, I realized that I needed to redirect my ideas and change a lot of my work. This made my writing process very heavy on revising because I always had several drafts before I turned in a final project. I am glad I could utilize peer review because it helped me grasp the purpose of the projects better and improved my work. Also, the format of this course with writing blog posts augmented the fact that I am a heavy planner because all of these blog posts were essentially planing for the final project. So overall, my writing process that I discussed in my first blog post has been consistent throughout this semester. 

Now for my time management, I felt like I did a very good job staying on top of all of the coursework in this class. I always started working on the deadline early in the week and rarely had to cram on Saturday nights. I utilized office hours at least 2 times each month. I did stick to my plan when I said in my calendar reflection that I would work on english homework in the morning before my afternoon classes. This class was one of two that took up the most time out of my week in devoting time to study for it. This ended up being okay because my schedule was balanced with several Ogen-eds and this made it easier to keep up with work for the class.

I think I am very good at managing time and don't see myself struggling with this too much in the future. However, as classes get harder I will be more stressed and I might need to adopt different time manning and working processes. For now I am pleased with my work ethic this semester and hope it can continue this way for the next semester!

"Happy Sunshine." 2012 via Pixabay. Creative Commons.

Reflection on Project 3

In this post I will answer questions that will help me reflect on Project 3. 

1. I included more of my opinion and more personal pronouns to emphasize the fact that the article is an act of public speech. Also, I wanted to connect to the audience at a personal level and have a conversational tone. I had to make changes in my writing so it was clear that I was proposing a solution to the designer baby debate and that this solution is a good idea. 

2. I changed a lot of my paragraphs around so that the flow of the article made more sense. For example, I saved the rebuttal for the end after I gave my argument. Furthermore I made sure that the purpose of my article was clear at the beginning so I rearranged sentences to do this. I needed it to be clear that I was proposing a solution to the designer baby debate, but without getting too technical with science terms or getting too consumed in the controversy itself.

3. I made these changes because they were brought to my attention during peer review. Peer review was very helpful because it helped me focus on specific things that needed to be changed. I also changed my drafts several times because my purpose and audience both changed throughout the drafting process.

4. These changes strengthened my credibility. Because these changes improved my purpose, audience, and overall rhetorical strategies, my credibility as an authors also improved.

5. The audience that I ended up focusing on is directly related to the argument because they are the people that the solution effects. The audience is more likely to agree with my argument after these changes. 

6. As I read through my drafts I changed any sentence structure or word choice that seemed awkward. This helped the clarity of my article as a whole. Also, I had to change my title because it used humor and this was not consistent with the tone of the rest of my article. 

7.  The audience can focus in easier on the purpose of my argument with these changes and have an easier time siding with my opinion. With local sentence structure and style changes it will be easier to read and understand the article. 

8. I had a very strong sense of the genre of my article so this was one of the few things I did not have to change throughout the drafting process. I tried to replicate an op-ed article that I found on the New York Times online and I was happy with how it turned out. I had to make sure that my captions and citations were consistent with the conventions of the op-ed articles that I found online and had to make some small revisions. 

9. The process of reflection gives me clarity on my identity of a writer. This is not usually something that I put much thought into, so by sitting down and having to answer questions that force me to reflect on my writing is very helpful.

Russill, Nick. "Penguin Reflection." 16 Jan. 2007 via Flickr. Creative Commons.

Publishing Public Argument

You can access my Project 3 public argument though by blog. The following questions help outline the purpose, audience, genre, and rhetorical strategies of my argument. 

1. Mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue (before reading/watching/hearing your argument) below:

←----------------------------------------------------|--------X------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                             Strongly  disagree

agree 

                                                                                                                  

2. Now mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience should be (after they've read/watched/heard your argument) below:

←X----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                           Strongly disagree

agree 

                                                                                                                         

3. Check one (and only one) of the argument types below for your public argument:

         ___X____ My public argument proposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.

4. Briefly explain how your public argument doesn’t simply restate information from other sources, but provides original context and insight into the situation:

Almost every article I have read on designer babies argues with a pro/con stance. My public argument is unique because I am proposing a solution to the debate that appeases both sides. Also, reproductive technology has been talked about in the context of designer babies but never as a solution. 

5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed n your public argument below:

Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals

                    __X___ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)

                    __X___ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate images of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)

                    ___X__ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)

                    ___X__ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently

Emotional appeals

                    __X___ Employing an appropriate level of formality for the subject matter (through appearance, formatting, style of language, etc.)

                    __X___ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point

                    __X___ Use of imagery to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    __X___ Employing an attractive color palette that sets an appropriate emotional tone (no clashing or ‘ugly’ colors, no overuse of too many variant colors, etc.)

Logical or rational appeals

                    ___X__ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position

                    ___X__ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument

6. Below, provide us with working hyperlinks to THREE good examples of the genre you've chosen to write in. These examples can come from Blog Post 11.3 or they can be new examples. But they should all come from the same specific website/platform and should demonstrate the conventions for your piece:

example 1

example 2

example 3

Magee, Alyssa. "Triplets." 2012 via WeHeartIt.

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

I peer reviewed two drafts and also had my draft reviewed,  so this post is about reflecting on both of these tasks. 

I reviewed Ann Emilie and Tom's project 3 drafts. 

• Ann Emilie's peer review sheet
• Tom's peer review sheet

1.My draft was reviewed by Mark Lubniewski.

2. Mark's feedback in the genre category was really helpful because it seemed like most of my formatting choices like pictures and graphics had the effect that I was hoping. He suggested changing the title so it fits the article better and is less ambiguous and I agree. I was concerned when he thought that my article was a refutation argument because it is supposed to be an evaluative argument. I will have to go back and edit certain sections to make it more explicit that I am proposing a solution to the designer baby debate. Some of his feedback was hard to understand because he seemed to be talking a lot about the topic of my article and a lot of his comments were not things I was trying to prove, this could possibly be because he already is knowledgeable about the subject.

3. My argumentation needs the most revision because I need it to be clear that I am providing a solution to an existing problem. I will do this by explicitly stating in my article that current reproductive technology is a good solution to calm fears over the designer baby debate and concerns about research in that technology.

4. I feel really good about where my article is right now. I have to make some changes to improve clarity and make sure my purpose is clear, but I have a really good base to go off of. The things that were brought up in the conferences align with the comments made on the peer review so I now I know what to work on.

Aneta Szpyrka. "Silver Reflection." 24 July 2006 via Flickr. Creative Commons. 

Draft of Project 3

This post includes a link to my Project 3 Draft.

I tried to get all of my ideas down in this draft so I don't really like how it is organized and flows... would love comments on this part! Also, I don't know if it is completely obvious what my audience and purpose is so I would also like comments on that aspect as well! Thanks and here is my draft. :)

Asahiko. "Red Marker." 8 July 2012 via Wikipedia Commons. Creative Commons. 

Considering Visual Elements

In this post I will address multiple questions that have to do with planning out the visual elements of my op-ed.

1. Which color choices best reflect the visual-rhetorical tone of my project?
I would love to use vibrant colors to catch the attention of readers, but I have not seen colored font or backgrounds in op-eds. I will probably use a bright color in the headline to catch the readers attention and then rely on pictures for colorful visuals.

2. How might I vary the fonts used in my project for emphasis?
I can italicize and bold words that need emphasis in my body paragraphs to draw attention to specific words. I will definitely use a different font in my title than in my body paragraphs to create a contrast between the two. 

3. Are the fonts I use complementary or is the combination distracting?
I will make sure the fonts are complementary to make sure the op-ed is cohesive and does not seem too disparate from the title. I do not want to confuse my readers with distracting font choices.

4. If my project uses graphics, are the graphics appropriate to the visual-rhetorical tone of the project?
I may end up incorporating graphics in my op-ed if I cannot find pictures online that convey the message I want to be conveyed through visuals. Some word choice that I will be using in my article will specifically relate to visual ideas that I would love to incorporate in my op-ed. 

5. Is the feeling or tone that the image invokes appropriate to the visual-rhetorical tone of my argument?
I am going to be using visuals to appeal to pathos in my op-ed because I think appealing to emotion will help strengthen my argument and connect readers to the topic. 

6. Is the image in close proximity to the argument that is is emphasizing or illustrating?
I think this is a great idea to think about and I am going to make sure that the placement of my visual is somewhat near the point that is correlates to in my op-ed. This will make the visual use clear to the reader and enhance it's purpose. 

7. If your project contains large blocks of texts, could they be broken up more effectively using text boxes, lines, headings, or images?
The conventions of op-eds includes short paragraphs, but to have a more creatively organized article I will definitely consider using any of these techniques. 

8. Do too many visuals make your text busy or disorganized?
The conventions of op-eds show that most do not include more than a couple pictures so I will have to limit myself to visuals due to the constraints of my genre. These conventions are in place to help create a well organized piece. 

"Paintbrush." Nov. 2013 via Pixabay. Creative Commons. 

Project 3 Outline

In this post I will construct an outline for Project 3, which is writing an argument on the controversy of designer babies in an op-ed.

Introduction (define or narrow the problem)

• Hook: When the term "designer babies" is thrown out in the news people automatically picture a glowing newborn baby with bright blue eyes. These type of articles regurgitate the common pro con arguments to the designer baby controversy. The supporters emphasize the possible medical breakthroughs that the technology of designer babies (gene editing) can create. The opponents argue that immorality and unknown risks outweigh the positives. 
• Transition: I am going to expand on the argument against designer babies and further convince my audience that designer babies are wrong and inspire them to act to prevent designer babies from becoming a reality. 
• Thesis: The high cost of designer babies will create societal conflicts because only an select group of wealthy people can afford it. Gene editing is immoral because it only serves to enhance traits and reproductive technology already exists to prevent genetic disease. 

Body Paragraphs

1. Major supporting arguments

• high cost of reproductive technology- in-vitro fertilization (IVF), pre-implantation genetic  diagnosis (PGD), and egg and sperm donors
• the gene editing technology of designer babies will cost a lot too like all of these reproductive technologies 
• don't need gene editing to prevent hereditable diseases, GDP can do this
• only the wealthy class can afford because costs are not covered by insurance companies
• separates upper and lower class further
• creates another discriminating factor that interferes with society's progress towards equality

2. Major criticisms

• The price could decrease as more technologies become available to public and more mainstream
• The technology of gene editing can still be used for medicine and not designer babies
• The market of reproductive technology will make it hard to prevent designer babies

3. Select key support and rebuttal points

• high cost to technology of designer babies: the price could decrease before the technology is available to public
• separates upper and lower classes further: ability to cure diseases outweighs the negative societal effects
• designer babies creates another discriminating factor: market of reproductive technology will make it hard to prevent designer babies

4. Topic sentence for each 

• As shown by the high costs of IVF treatment, only the wealthy class will be able to afford the technology of designer babies, and therefore the gap between upper and lower classes will increase. 
• Designer baby children will have unfair advantages that creates an additional discriminating factor, which impedes society's goal towards equality. 
• Technology already exists to prevent genetic diseases, so genetic editing would only serve to enhance and perfect traits which is immoral. 

5. Evidence

• By spending staggering amounts of money, as much as $100,000, picky parents would soon be able to design superior physical, mental and psychological attributes for their babies-to-be
• As reproductive technologies push the envelope of possibilities, they . . . will blur the edges of what is now formally forbidden: cloning, fetal research," Harvard economist Debora L. Spar writes in her book "The Baby Business." 
• Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, one of the biggest scientific advancements, costs $3,000 to $5,000. That's on top of the $10,000-to-$15,000 price for in vitro fertilization.
• Who wouldn't want to give their child every advantage possible in an increasingly competitive world? 
• Even if the cost of this extra genetic screening comes down, the overall procedure is probably going to be out of reach for many Americans, let alone other countries around the world.
• Imagine a scenario at a future Olympics: is it legitimate to have a genetically designed person competing against those who are not? At the moment, it's a bit of luck who has the right body for certain sports. But in the future, those traits could be selected for and groomed from the womb.
• But if we think the gap between the haves and have-nots is large now, just wait until this technology is used to pre-select characteristics for success.
• Genetic modifications of sperm, eggs and early embryos should be strictly off limits. Otherwise, we risk venturing into human experimentation and high-tech eugenics.
• ...argue that any genetic modification of embryos should be verboten. “Otherwise, we risk venturing into human experimentation and high-tech eugenics,” Darnovsky writes in a New York Times op-ed.
• There are safer and more dependable methods for preventing the birth of a child with a severe genetic abnormality than by genetic modification of the germ cells. The use of prenatal screening or pre-implantation embryo diagnosis will suffice in most cases to prevent the birth of a genetically abnormal embryo.
• The greatest danger of a belief in genetic engineering lies in its likely social impact. Eugenics will inevitably be used by those with wealth and power to make others believe that prenatal genetic modification makes people better. 

6.  Map of Argument

• Here is a link to a Coggle of my argument. 

Conclusion (call to action/future of the debate)

• Motivate the audience to speak up and voice there opinions against designer babies. Convince the NIH and FDA that the technology of gene editing is not beneficial to humankind. 
• There are more moral ways to go about improving human life and gene editing is an option that is too risky and has too many negative consequences. 
• ADD MORE!

Oberholster, Venita. "Silhouette." 6 Oct. 2015 via Pixabay. Creative Comons. 

Reflection:
I read Jenny and Addie's Project 3 outlines and both did a really great job developing all of their ideas. After meeting with Mr. Bottai in class I have come up with a new direction I am going to approach my argument with, so this current outline does not really apply to my project any more. I am going to go through this process for my new argument, but It was too much work to completely redo my Project 3 Outline post. The future blog posts will be adapted to my new argument. Some major changes are that I am going to focus on the reproductive technology available currently and how these procedures already allow for some type of "designer baby". Also, this argument will be an evaluative argument of how successful these procedures satisfy the designer baby debate. 

Analyzing My Genre

I have chosen to write Project 3 in an op-ed. This post will analyze the aspects of this genre.

EXAMPLE 1
EXAMPLE 2
EXAMPLE 3
EXAMPLE 4
EXAMPLE 5 

SOCIAL CONTEXT

• Setting- The genre is located in newspapers and there is a specific section in newspapers dedicated to op-eds. 
• Subject- The subject is any current news issue that people have opinions on. 
• Who uses the genre- Authors that want to publish writing pieces that give their opinions on current events.
• When and why- People that are interested in reading about writer's views and opinions on current events will engage in op-eds.

RHETORICAL PATTERNS

• Content to include- Make a single point, tell readers why they should care, include personal voice, include personal connections, acknowledge the other side, offer a solution to a problem. 
• Content to avoid- Do not just give facts, discuss why they matter. Do not include long rebuttals and don't try to cover too much.
• Rhetorical appeals- Logos and pathos are the most important. Facts are included in a way that flows well with the opinions to help support what the writer is saying. Connecting to the audience through word choice, images, and format is very useful in op-eds. 
• Organization- The length varies but on average op-eds should aim to be 750 words, the shorter the better. The introduction is short and to the point and the main point should be at the beginning and only take up a couple sentences. Also, the paragraphs are short, images are used, and a headline is included. 
• Sentence structure- Only active voice should be used when writing an op-ed. Questions, exclamatory sentences, and any unique sentences structures are used to make the op-ed creative, give it style, and include a personal touch. 
• Word choice- Op-eds avoid jargon and overall use simple language. Simple language does not mean boring, it just means that it is easy for the reader to comprehend. Technical terms can be left out and only include simple terms. Humor is used in some op-eds and is definitely a useful technique. 

ANALYZE WHAT PATTERNS REVEAL ABOUT SOICAL CONEXT

• Genre includes... People that read magazines or go online to read the op-ed section. People that engage in newspapers like the New York Times. 
• Genre excludes... People that rely on social media and news shows to obtain information. 
• Role of writers... To engage in the text and be influenced by the opinions expressed. Authors are not trying to persuade, but definitely want people to understand and side with their opinion. 
• Role of readers... Process the information in an op-ed and determine if the argument is good and then build beliefs and opinions based off of it. 
• Values and beliefs of users... Readers believe in free speech and expression. Depending on the newspaper the op-ed is featured in, the readers will have different values and beliefs. Also, depending on which op-eds readers read my reveal different values and beliefs. 
• Most valuable content... Using a personal voice and making personal connections to the audience are. Also, important things to an op-ed are having a short and concise pieces and using short paragraphs within.  
• Least valuable content... If you pose a problem it is best to also provide a solution, and hard facts and evidence are not effective.

Price, Dave. "The Daily News." 2006 via Wikipedia. Creative Commons.

Reflection:
I read Jenny and Addie's posts on Analyzing My Genre. Jenny is writing an editorial, and an editorial has almost the exact same conventions of an op-ed. However, the major difference is that an op-ed can be written by anyone that isn't an established author or working for the specific news company. I will definitely collaborate with Jenny if I run into questions about my genre. Addie is writing a blog post which is a genre I am familiar in due to this class. I was able to give her feedback on her conventions, but mostly I am excited to see how she is able to be creative with this project given her genre. I hope that even with my op-ed I can incorporate creativity. 

Considering Types

There are 5 basis types of public argument and I am going to evaluate 

which ones work best and which ones don't apply to my argument. 

"Creation Day Five." October 2012 via Pixabay.
Creative Commons

My argument would work best with the position argument type. I am elaborating on an already existing pro con debate over designer babies. I will be creating my own argument against designer babies, and this will also be using the refutation type argument. I am focusing on the harm of designer babies and the negative effects. I want to convince people not to use the gene editing technology when it becomes available. 

The evaluative and proposal argument type will not work for my argument because I am not giving a solution for a problem or analyzing an existing solution for a problem. The casual argument would only work if my argument is supporting designer babies because then I could argue why the gene editing technology came about and its impertinence. 

Reflection:
I read Jenny and Addy's My Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types blog posts. Both Jenny and Addy included evaluative as one of their argument types. These both work great for their topics, and I feel like a position argument still works the best for my argument. Jenny and Addy also had really great rhetorical plans, but both could improve on narrowing their audience. I know my rhetorical plan is not perfect but it is a good start to begin Project 3. 
Jenny
-Rhetorical Plan
- Considering Types
Addy
-Rhetorical Plan
-Considering Types 

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this post I will be developing a a rhetorical action plan that involves describing the audience, genre, and responses/actions of argument. 


AUDIENCE

• Knowledge: The audience has a general understanding of designer babies and the pros and cons of the debate. They get there information from other articles posted online on news sites or the New York Times. The audience will have some doubts on the side in favor of designer babies and are looking for better arguments in opposition. 
• Values: The audience wants any kind of technology to be ethical, they want it to be proven to be safe before it the gene editing is tested on humans.
• Standards of Argument: Statistics that outline the costs of the technology and the demographics that are most likely to use it will be the most persuasive. This research will be very easy to understand by the audience.
• Visual Elements: Graphs and charts that depict the evidence mentioned above will be useful visual elements so the audience can understand the argument.
• Purpose: The audience that will be reading my article will have a desire to find arguments against the designer baby debate. I am looking to expand the debate against designer babies and hopefully motivate people to stand up against future legislation. My argument cannot stand alone, but it gives another viewpoint on the subject to help further convince people against designer babies. 

GENRE

1- Op-ed, example 1, example 2

• Function: This genre allows an author not affiliated with the publishing group in an newspaper, magazine, etc. to public a piece that expresses opinions or comments on an issue.
• Setting: Op-eds are found in newspapers.
• Rhetorical Appeals: All the rhetorical strategies can be implemented in an op-ed. Facts, credibility, and emotional language will all enhance an argument.
• Visual Elements: A single picture will be sufficient in an op-ed. 
• Style: I will use an informal and conversational tone to connect with readers and make it seem like I am talking to them on a personal level.

2- Online news article, example 1, example 2

• Function: This genre allows writers and authors to publish articles online and address specific audiences depending on where it is published. 
• Setting: These are found on online sites ranging of news sites to media driven sources like Huffington Post, to academic medical websites. 
• Rhetorical Appeals: All the rhetorical strategies can be implemented in articles. Facts, credibility, and emotional language will all enhance an argument.
• Visual Elements: Both pictures and embedded videos are appropriate for this genre.
• Style: I wil use a formal tone while also incorporating a conversational tone. Articles are more convincing if they are written professional but still need to convey opinions and sound interesting. 

RESPONSES/ACTIONS

• Positive Support- People will agree with the new argument against designer babies, people will see the risks that the technology entails, presenting a new side to the typical con argument raises attention. 
• Negative Rebuttals- People will disagree with the argument, people might not find it convincing, people will find the argument too speculative. 
• Address Rebuttal- If people think the argument is too speculative, I will try and avoid this by presenting lots of facts and analysis to support my opinions. Overall I can make my argument more convincing with evidence. 
• Chain Reaction- By presenting a new side to the argument it will raise attention to the opposition of designer babies. Then, the debate will be geared in a new direction that will raise other new perspectives on the issue. Lastly, more people will get involved in the debate, more people will start to voice there opinions, and as more people get involved they can hopefully make a difference by influencing legislation or actively work to stop research.

Kelsall, Ian. "Compass and map mono."31 March 2006 via Flickr. Creative Commons. 

Analyzing Purpose

In this post I am going to do some deep thinking about what I want the purpose of my own argument to be on the designer baby debate.

Free write on the goal of your argument...

• I want to expand on the idea that only a small sect of Americans will actually have the opportunity to use the gene editing technology whether its for the right (medical) or wrong (choosing traits) purposes. Right now there are huge price tags for IVF alone, and this number will only increase as the option for gene editing goes on the market. The fact that only a small amount of people will have the financial stability to access this specialized technology, will separate and gab between the rich and lower classes even further. This will have negative consequences on creating an society will values on equality because there will be another factor now to differentiate people. I want readers to really look at the idea of designer babies and reconsider if this is the type of society they want. Readers should be fearful  that designer babies will create an elite class that will interfere with America's advances as a whole society in working toward greater equality. It is so easy to accept something due to the great possibilities promised, but I am going to try and tackle proving why the risks outweigh the consequences. 

Plausible reactions/actions...

• People agree with the negative side of designer babies
• People will become afraid of the technology
• People will disagree with the argument
• People will doubt the reality and find the argument too speculative
• Presenting a new side that raises attention 

Not plausible....

• People will completely agree with my position
• People will be able to stop the research on designer babies from happening

Cause and effect chain....

• Reaction: Presenting a new side that raises attention
• Accomplish: Gear the debate in a new direction that will raise new perspectives on the issue
• Then: More people will get involved in the debate, people will voice other new opinions, get the public more involved in effecting legislation, ultimately the public can help promote legislation that will block research

Talk about possible audience and people interested this argument...

The audience that is most likely to engage in my argument are people of middle socioeconomic status and young, new families expecting kids. This is a topic that will not interest older age groups because it has no importance on their lives because gene editing and designer babies will still take a while to fully be available to the public. While forms of designer babies are already available through IVF, this selective process is not changing any DNA, it is just simply choosing the best combination of genes present. Expecting parents are the biggest target because they will be the ones using this technology and if we can't get legislation to stop this technology, we can hopefully influence some parents to not invest in it. 

Blenkinsopp, Des. "Goal, North Moreton." 2012 via Geograph. Creative Commons. 

Analyzing Context

In this post I will be answering question to further understand the context of the argument I will be writing. 

1. What are the key perspectives on the debate that you are studying?
There are two main perspectives for the designer baby debate. First, there are those that are for designer babies and promoting any technology that helps make them a reality. Then, there are those that are against the idea of designer babies and don't want to promote the technology that could possibly make them feasible.

2. What are the major disagreements among these perspectives?
The side that is against designer babies argues that it is immoral to select traits in your child and that you are "playing God." Also, there are many risks involved in gene editing that could have evolutionary consequences and lastly, only the wealthy class can afford this advantage. The side that supports designer babies focuses on the opportunities in treating disease especially genetically inherited ones. The medicinal potential with this technology is huge.

3. What are the possible points of agreement or common ground between the two perspectives?
The two perspectives agree that there is still a lot to research and finalize about gene editing. Some people are just more eager to advance and promote this research than others. The supporters have so acknowledge some of the risks and those against have to consider the possibilities. 

4. What are the ideological differences between the perspectives?
More progressive thinkers are more likely to take sides with the perspective that supports designer babies, and the more conservative type people are more likely to takes sides with the perspective that opposes designer babies. 

5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?
Calls to action on the side against designer babies include not supporting legislation that will help promote research of gene editing and overall speak against the topic in public settings. Calls to action on the side supporting designer babies follows similarly, support legislation that will help continue and progress research of gene editing and educate others to have similar beliefs. Some take a neutral stance and say to overall be educated on both sides and let the facts sway and persuade the public. 

6. What perspective are useful in supporting your own argument about he issue? Why did you choose these?
Perspectives that are against the designer baby issue are going to be more useful in supporting my issue. This is especially true for ones that focus on the affordability of the technology (or lack there of) and the risks like evolutionary consequences. Also, I believe that this technology will start off being used for good reasons like supporting medical discoveries but in the end will be abused for the wrong reasons like parents designing the "perfect' child. 

7. What perspectives do you think will be the biggest threat to your argument, why?
The biggest threat to my argument is the possibility of curing diseases that the technology behind designer babies offer. As a person passionate about science research and curing diseases, this is hard for me to go against also. I just think there are safer ways to go about finding cures, and if it means waiting and decades more of research, I think that is what it best to protect humanity. 

Hagen, Hans. "ConTeXt." 24 May 2015 via Wikipedia. Creative Commons.

Reflection:
I read Jenny and Clay's posts on analyzing context. Jenny approached the context focusing more on the groups involved in the debate. I should look more into the context of the main organizations and people speaking for and against designer babies. Clay's context was very straight forward, but lacked some detail in analyzing the context that both Jenny and I had. Overall, I think I did a good job analyzing the perspectives that surround the designer baby debate and I have narrowed in on a topic to argue that is new and different.