Project 2 Outline

This blog post will outline my rhetorical analysis essay. First I will share the important parts of the text Writing Your Analysis Essay and then my outline. 

The introduction section helped give me direction in how to start my introduction and I used the idea of perspectives to introduce writing a rhetorical analysis essay as a whole. The main point I got from the thesis section is that the thesis statement should tell the reader what the author is trying to say and how they went about saying it. The text was really helpful when it gave an example of how an analytical claim needs to be debatable and not just stating a fact. The analytical support stresses the importance of connecting your analysis of the text to specific examples and quotes from the text. The body section made me realize that the rhetorical strategies logos, ethos, and pathos overlap, and this helped me form my body paragraphs. Lastly, the conclusion section says to think about whether or not you found the strategies persuasive, and I used this as the base of my conclusion. 

Introduction:
-It is important to understand that everyones' ideas about which rhetorical strategies and situations are most effective differs. This means that rhetorical analyses will vary depending on how the author interprets the text they are writing about.

Thesis: 
-In the article, Extremely Hopeful and Incredibly Freaked Out: How We Feel About Designer Babies, author Nick Stockton argues how people should approach the issue by appealing to emotion and showing the cultural beliefs that frame the debate. He also establishes credibility by using logical rhetoric and conveys his critiques by contextualizing the issue. 

Body Paragraph 1:
- claim: Stockton uses emotional appeal and addresses the cultural views on designer babies to argue how people should choose sides on the debate.
-sub-claim: Stockton argues that the public has valid fears and hopes, but the public can not approach the issue of designer babies from only one point of view.
- support: 

• "Let's not leave out the hope of eradicating thousands of diseases, and the potential to make many pharmacological treatments obsolete."
• "And don't forget the hope. That gene editing might be the most important medical discovery of the century."
• "...precisely engineered prodigy have been a big fear." 
• "So what's there to be afraid of?Plenty. Even after years of perfecting techniques... side effects are always possible." 

- sub-claim: Stockton implements emotional word choice to draw the audience in and connect to them in order to convince them of his argument. 
- suport:

•  "...let's not let this conversation get chewed up by the 140 character outrage industrial complex. But mostly, let's not have gene editing fall prey to science-deaf legislation."
•  "Lab-coated shoulders hunched over petri dishes full of zebrafish1 DNA. Graduate students staring at chromatographs until their eyes ache."
• "but all those feet pumping on the breaks makes it look like research is skidding out of control."

Body Paragraph 2:
- claim: Stockton establishes his credibility as a writer on the designer baby debate by using logical rhetoric like reliable sources and addressing both sides of the argument.  
- sub-claim: The audience is convinced of his position because his statements are supported with quotes from professional researchers and teachers in the genetics field.
- support: 

• "...Debra Mathews, a geneticist and bioethicist at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics."
•  "...George Church, a geneticist from Harvard."
• "...or change epigenetic states," says Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell biologist at UC-Davis.

- sub-claim: Stockton continues build a credible reputation by presenting examples from both sides of the issue in order to not sound bias.

• "So be afraid, be hopeful, and above all be educated."
• "But it's important to temper those fears with other considerations." 

Body Paragraph 3:
- claim: Stockton states his critiques on the designer baby debate by contextualizing the history of genetic research and the current stance of genetic editing. 
- sub-claim:  Stockton presents past events that have been detrimental to advancements in genetic research to argue that people need to be more educated.
- support:

• "In the 1990s, embryonic stem cell research got caught up in the great abortion debates. ... The result was the Dickey- Wicker amendment, which makes embryonic stem cell work off-limits for federal research dollars."
• "The NIH announcement raises the same fears of shortsighted and fragmented legislation. Instead of preserving the sanctity of human heritage, the country could prevent itself from eradicating the most inhumane heritable diseases.

- sub-claim: 
- support:

• "The biggest fear of these scientists is that average citizens- and the government that serve them- will make their rules about gene editing without thinking things through. 
• "At least, let's not pass those laws without taking a good hard look at the real risks- and real possibilities- of human gene editing. 

Conclusion:
The authors use of rhetoric is successful because it convinces his audience to become better educated on the issue before deciding whether they fear or show hope for the future of designer babies. Also, the rhetorical strategies make the audience reflect on the critiques Stockton presents as issues for the designer baby debate. 
- Relate to bigger picture- future genetic research and technology.

"Vectorial Gratitude." October 2014 via Pixabay. Creative Commons.

Reflection:
I read Jenny and Lauren's outlines and they were very well done. I really like how they provided analysis in the outline to connect thier analytical claims (body paragraph topics) to their quotes and evidence. I should have made some bullet points that did this in my outline, but I like to add analysis in while writing the rough draft. One difference between my outline and theirs is I wrote out more complete sentences. I think bullet points are usually the context of outlines but I figured it would save me some time when writing my rough draft to already have complete sentences written.