Basic Analysis of "The other Jesus"

Ethos: This story is published on newsweek, a respectable organization that publishes many current stories as well as other documents. The Author references a quote by Pope John Paul 2, to help illustrate the nature of who Christ is to many of the world's religions. It also quotes many theologians and professors, at least one for each group.

Pathos: The use of pathos in this article is difficult to determine, as this article simply seems to be a list of facts about some well known religions in the world. However, some of the uses of Pathos could be when the author references how each of these religions views the Person of Christ. All of the religions view him as a man of love, and a wise man. This article also appeals to the reader by giving them a better understanding of the world's major religions.

Logos: The Logos involved is the accounting of how Christ is viewed in the major religions, by comparing the beliefs of other groups. The author interviewed several theologians and professors for each religion and included them in the article.


Audience: I think that this article is definitely aimed at the average American public who, most likely, would not know many of these things about the major religions in the world. The author of this article most probably wanted to shed light on how the Character of Christ had an enormous impact on many of the religions in the world.

Bias: I do not believe the author really has a bias, other than trying to clarify, perhaps, how most of these other faiths view the figure of Christ. The author isn't trying to prove, or discredit any of the religions, but is simply showing some important facts about how Christ is involved in all of these faiths.

Rough Draft of Summary Strong Response, Conrad Keezer

Rough Draft of Summary Strong Response, Conrad Keezer

Mandatory screening; is it selective eugenics? Or is it “smart science?” (Appel par. 1)

In an article published on the website Opposing views, Mr. Jacob Appel asserts that

Mandatory genetic testing should at least be imposed on fetuses fertilized by in vitro

fertilization. He also gives several reasons why such screening could be effective. While

he makes some interesting points in his article, he doesn’t provide enough information

to effectively persuade the audience on a highly controversial issue.

Mr. Appel begins his argument with an acknowledgement of a study done by Physicians

at the University College in London that determined that they could successfully test

unborn infants for genetic problems that could lead to breast cancer. Mr. Appel then

raises the question that “If pre-implantation genetic diagnosis during in vitro fertilization

(IVF) can successfully prevent children from developing serious illnesses, why shouldn’t

such screening be required?” (Appel, par. 3) Mr. Appel then continues on in his article

with information stating that women who have the breast cancer gene (BRCA1) have an

80 percent chance of developing breast cancer in the future. While Mr. Appel admits that

treatment for breast cancer is successful now, at eighty-eight percent for a five-year

survival rate, he does not believe this should deter the potential benefits of genetic

screening. Further on in his article, Mr. Appel continues his argument based upon some

appeals to logos, making the point that genetic screening could save taxpayer dollars, and

also makes appeals to ethos stating that laws in the United States prevent parents from

refusing life-saving treatment for their children on the basis of religious beliefs.

Mr. Appel concludes his argument by admitting that certain genetic screening could be

perceived as an attempt to create a perfect human, reminiscent of Hitler’s master race, but

concludes that mandatory genetic testing should be imposed nonetheless.

In his article, Mr. Appel’s article consists mostly of appeals to logos via an ethical

argument. He argues that if we impose mandatory genetic testing, we can prevent an

individual from living a life of suffering from a genetic disease. He states “The most

obvious advantage of mandatory screening is that it will reduce the long-term suffering of

the children who are spared the disease.” Appel, par. 6) Mr. Appel compares this idea to

child welfare laws that prohibit exposure to environmental toxins that produce an eighty

percent risk of future cancer. Another point made is that American courts compel

pediatric cancer therapy, even when parents may object. Using this point, Mr. Appel

states that the government should have the right to override parents wishes on the issue of

genetic screening, on the basis of protecting the child. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Appel

refers to how U.S. law prohibits parents from refusing life-saving treatment for their

children on the basis of religious grounds. He states “… Western Societies have long

acknowledged that parental authority cannot undermine the medical interests of a child.”

(Appel, par. 7) Later in his article, he also makes the case that mandatory genetic testing

can be used for good, as easily as it could be used for evil. However, he believes, and

argues that the benefits of using such testing, far outweigh the ethical implications of

such a decision. This belief is demonstrated in his final sentence where Mr. Appel states

that “Maybe the benefits are so clear-cut that opting out shouldn’t be an option.”

Other than an ethical argument, Mr. Appel makes, unfortunately, few other appeals to

logos. He mentions that the benefits of genetic testing could prevent the use of taxpayer’s

dollars that would be spent for treatment of individuals with these diseases. In addition to

saving public money on prevention for disease, Mr. Appel also asserts that it will save

money in the private sector as an increasing amount of insurers are having to cover the

costs of fertility therapy. He also states that “Women who carry the BRCA1 gene have an

eighty percent chance of developing breast cancer, and a forty percent chance of

developing ovarian cancer.” Using these facts, Mr. Appel believes that these statistics

support his position on genetic testing. While hard facts and statistical information in this

article may be somewhat effective for his argument, the use of logos is too few and far

between to sway an audience to agree with his position by logic alone. Now, in his use of

logos, Mr. Appel does reference findings from a University College in London, as well as

findings from British researchers. These studies lend credence to his position by

reinforcing the argument with hard facts. However, his argument with logic may have

been helped by referencing other studies by Universities from multiple regions to indicate

that a pattern, if any, exists.

In this article, Mr. Appel makes use of Pathos in a few sections. The first of

which, is the appeal to the heart of the audience, regarding the suffering lifestyle of an

individual who has a disease that could have been detected earlier during the pregnancy.

He references the story of a mother who had the screening technique used because “The

mother… opted for screening after the mutant gene had triggered malignancies in her

husband’s mother, sister, grandmother, and cousin.” (Appel, par. 4) Mr. Appel in this

scenario does use an effective appeal to the emotion of the reader, and helps make the

case for his argument. In the article, Mr. Appel frequently mentions the importance of

protecting children who may be afflicted with diseases that could have been detected

before birth. With these sections, Mr. Appel does appeal to the audience through emotion,

yet as with logos, the use of pathos is not used as strongly as his use of ethos and logos.

In conclusion, Mr. Appel's article uses a mix of ethos, pathos, and logos. Unfortunately,

his use of logos was somewhat limited in that he didn't present much hard evidence in

favor of his position. As a reader, I was disappointed that he didn't reference other studies

that produced similar results. While his overall article could be an effective argument on

this issue, his lack of using other studies on the issue don’t serve to reinforce his

argument. Also, creating an argument in favor of mandatory testing, and the removal of

certain genomes, leaves the reader with many questions as to the potential consequences

of such an action. How would this procedure affect adults later in life? Have there been

other tests that show perhaps negative results to this? If Mr. Appel had discussed these,

and other issues, then his article could have been reinforced.

The ethical dilemma of mandatory genetic testing is presented in this article. Would an

unbiased audience side with Mr. Appel, and conclude that mandatory testing is worth

the costs, both financially and ethically? Or would the audience decide that mandatory

testing is ethically questionable, and shouldn't be enforced? It is a decision that America,

and the world will have to continually grapple with in the twenty-first century.

Citation of Sources

Appel. Jacob. “Mandatory Genetic Testing Isn’t Eugenics, It’s Smart Science.”

Opposing Views. Web. 25 January, 2010.

© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Declaration of independence

1. The writers of the declaration of independence make a list of several grievances committed against them by the King of Great Britain. They repeat several times, the list of these crimes committed against the colonists. This has the effect of reminding an audience of what they have gone through, and suffered at the hands of King George. This serves to create positive sentiment for their announced position further in the declaration.

2. The writer's use several personal pronouns, to apply these grievances to the daily life of the colonists. This serves to further remind them, and show that each individual who has suffered any of these grievances is not alone in doing so. This would create a sense of common unity among the colonists, and show that the framers of the declaration have a legitimate cause in accusing the King of these crimes.

3. This document is very persuasive in appealing to the unity, and love of freedom of the colonists. It presents a litany of complaints and accusations, several of which, are undoubtedly true, which unites public opinion for a common cause. It also would serve to bring in individuals who may have considered themselves "on the fence" about the acts of Great Britain toward the states. It first presents and appeals to their common principles in the rights of Humanity. It declares this list of rights as "unalienable" and states that they are granted to Humanity by its Creator. After presenting, and establishing these rights as universal, they then proceed to make a list of accusations stating that King George has violated these rights, and that any government that does so, should be overthrown by the people.

4. The declaration of independence does anticipate that their audience would be reticent to taking such an action. It makes such an overwhelming case for the beliefs of the basic freedoms of man that any reader studying this document would have to carefully consider the ramifications of living under such an oppressive system, as opposed to taking action to create a better future. It lays out a set of consequences that are combined with the list of complaints. It serves to remind the audience that unless action is taken, they will continue to have to live without representation, or the right to self-govern their own country, and that their situation could even worsen with time. By presenting these possible outcomes, and listing their consequences, it does show the reader that by not taking action, undesirable scenarios will unfold, and that only action will bring about freedom for the people.

Thesis and topic sentences

Thesis statement : While both of these qualified men write very compelling arguments, they fall short in areas of using methodical logic in their appeals to the American people.

Opening sentences of paragraphs.

1. President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform.

2. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform."

3. Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence.

4. Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan.

5. So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate?

6. Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement.

Journal 5

In this journal we went over various aspects of how different papers persuade audiences, and how we as writers can use our writing to influence an audience's perception of a subject. There are several ways to do this. An author can choose a controversial subject to write on, and make an argument for either side. Sometimes a writer will write an article with a specific audience in mind, and make a case for an issue. As audience members though, we should also realize that writer's themselves will usually have a bias on a subject, or may simply not know all the facts at hand. This is an angle of vision. When a reader analyzes an article by a writer, they need to realize that the writer is only human, and that they can never possibly know all of the facts to a subject, facts that might change how a subject can be perceived. When a reader looks at any kind of text, they should try to analyze the worldview that that text is conveying. Some types of writing material will try to make readers identify with certain worldviews, or to simply convey expressions or feelings. A reader should keep all of these possibilities in mind when reading a text.
Another aspect of study that we went over was the ability of writers to make proposals to society about current issues. Writers can make proposals to solutions of difficult issues from several approaches. They can argue an issue from principle, which is similar to appealing to the ethos of an issue. They can write as an argument about the consequences of certain actions, desirable or otherwise. They can also make arguments or proposals for solutions based upon solutions from similar historical problems. The challenge of proposal arguments, is that you can find yourself at times arguing against the grain of society on an issue. Societies are naturally resistant to change, and tackling any of these kind of issue will always be challenging. Even if it is an issue that is not necessarily controversial, writers trying to propose solutions to problems will have to come up with these solutions.
There are many different ways to create arguments, such as making posters, web pages, writing articles to newspapers, or other means. Individuals can also take opportunities to contact members of Congress or lawmaking authorities to propose solutions to problems. When you do send a letter, or write an article, you should give a good background of the issue. Describing the problem in detail will help readers understand why it should be a good idea to change an issue, or accept your solution to a problem. After this, you can then make a proposal for a solution, and show how it would work and why. After you make a proposal, then you need to justify why people should adopt this plan, and what benefits it would bring. These are several methods writers can use to give possible solutions to problems facing a society.

Final Draft of Comparison of sources

Is health care reform truly needed? This is a question that is being tackled by many groups this very moment. Members of both sides of the debate are working tirelessly to defend their points of view. Among the several high-profile officials involved in this debate are; President Barack Obama, and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.The President of the United States, Barack Obama, wrote an op-ed article to the New York Times, titled "Why We Need Health Care Reform" on August 16th, 2009. The former Speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, also wrote an op-ed also in The Examiner, titled "We get last word on health care reform" on September 4, 2009. In their articles, they present vastly different views on the same topic, and make robust arguments for their cases. This paper will be an analysis of the arguments that both President Obama, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich make for their side. While both of these qualified men write very compelling arguments, they fall short in areas of using methodical logic in their appeals to the American people.

President Obama starts off his article, "Why We Need Health Care Reform" recognizing the great debate taking place across America over health care reform. After this, he proceeds to recount his experiences of talking with individuals about health care. He mentions several instances where the current health insurance system has led to denial of claims, which have resulted in extremely high costs for the individuals, or even death in some cases. Most of his article makes a strong attempt to relate health care to average Americans. After having made his argument on denial of claims, President Obama switches gears and moves to a description of the type of health reform he wants to see in a bill. He proceeds to argue that we need cuts in "waste and inefficiency" ( Obama par. 6) and that we also need to rein in subsidies to insurance companies. The article continues with an argument supporting an end to the practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. President Obama also spends a large part of the article defending the measures of the bill, and arguing that the health care plan will not adversely affect Americans' choice of their doctor, or care provider. In closing, President Obama concludes that Americans will come together, and support the health care reform.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, casts a completely different light in his article, "We get the last word on health care reform." He begins his argument by criticizing President Obama for attempting to control the health care debate, and compares him to two other Presidents who he claims, had great orating skills like President Obama, but recognized that they can't control debate. He then brings up, and criticizes President Obama's "America's Recovery and Re-Investment act" for spending too much and failing to help the economy. He then asserts that President Obama, and Democrats in Congress are losing the debate on health care, and risk damaging their position by keeping their same arguing points. Speaker Gingrich then continues to claim that the health care reform efforts will lead to a "big government plan" (par.9). After making these claims, Former Speaker Gingrich mentions another health reform effort in recent history by then-President Clinton, and compares his response then, to the debate now. That it would be impossible to get a comprehensive health care reform passed in one giant bill. He asserts that the best way to get reform, is to spread the bill out in several smaller bills that would be easier to read and understand, and would also give the minority opposition opportunities to come to the table with their own ideas. He summarizes, and concludes the argument with a call for multiple bills, and a statement that this approach is more democratic than President Obama's "take it or leave it strategy" (par.19)

Now, while Both President Obama, and Former Speaker Newt Gingrich present legitimate arguing points to their side of the debate, they fail to back up their positions with hard evidence. First off, President Obama's op-ed article presents a great opening argument for health care reform by citing individuals that he has met, and stories of people who have talked to him. He makes a strong emotional appeal to the humanity of the issue, and an attempt to relate these stories and scenarios to everyday Americans. There are several instances in his article where he relates the potential consequences of avoiding health care reform, with statements like "If we continue to maintain the status quo, we will see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day." (par. 17), and the benefits of adopting it, such as the statement "... reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and our government." (par. 6). Now, while President Obama does as mentioned before, make a compelling argument based on pathos, the emotion of the issue, he lacks an appeal to the logos, or logical side of the argument. In the article he cites support from the American Medical Association, the American nurses association, the AARP, and a national survey done in 2007. However he does not name any of the sources for several of the conclusions in his article, and as a reader, a lack thereof may discourage you from adopting his ideas.

Former Speaker Gingrich also delivers a good argument for his side, but also fails to present any kind of evidence to support his claims, and does not offer a counter-proposal to President Obama's plan. At the onset of his article, Former Speaker Gingrich criticized President Obama for trying to "control the debate" (par. 2) as well as failing to deliver on the stimulus package he proposed and passed in early 2009. While Mr. Gingrich may have some legitimacy to his argument as to the effectiveness of these programs, and the potential of the new health care plan to be costly and ineffective, he does not cite any studies done to prove this. Mr. Gingrich also does not change the tone of his paper from a strictly argument-based approach. Mr. Gingrich makes appeals to pathos, emotion in his paper to the general mistrust of government ability that is widely accepted by his party members and base. He continues this appeal, with statements such as describing the plan as a "liberal health care bill" (par. 7) and "the same old, big government plan in prettier rhetorical paper." (par. 7) After making these points, Mr. Gingrich offers a possible alternative plan to Democrats proposals, with dividing the bill in several parts. This kind of idea still appeals to the emotion of the issue to the party base mostly. It could also be viewed as an appeal to a logical, methodical approach to health care that arguably, would give the reform a better chance at openness and bipartisanship.

So, in closing, do these two articles provide a much-needed discussion on the issue, while covering all the angles, the pathos, the ethos, and the logos of the debate? President Obama makes a strong case for the pathos of the issue, with his references to the hardships that many individuals have experienced from the current health care system. He also makes an appeal at the logical side of the argument, with some references to a national survey done, as well as the support of overhaul by three major organizations. His argument is strong, but it does lack a sufficient amount of factual data and statistics to cause me to support his position. On the other side of the debate, Former Speaker Gingrich made several appeals to pathos, but mostly to members of his own party, and Americans who may be distrusting of government influence. He provides for some possible alternative solutions to the health reforms, but does little to provide any data or evidence to support his claims of government inefficiency and waste in this potential system. As a reader, I was also disappointed with his article for failing to draw on any hard evidence to support his positions.

Without a doubt, health care reform is one of the biggest domestic policy decisions made in several decades, arguably, since the civil rights movement. It will have long lasting, and far-reaching effects to every American, and possibly nations and people outside of the country. With a topic of this magnitude, politicians can't afford to let personal preferences and opinions to get in the way of evidence and facts. Without these in hand with reform, any effort will simply degrade to whoever can argue the best, or who can shout the loudest.

Works Cited

Obama, Barack. "Why We Need Health Care Reform." New York Times. Web.

16, August 2009. Copyright 2009. The New York Times Company.



Gingrich, Newt. "We Get Last Word On Health Care Reform." The Washington Examiner. Web.

4 September 2009.


care-reform-8194219-57010122.html>

New Essay Exam

The Subject of my study is the current health care debate in Congress. My research has taken me to many sources, from both sides for, and against the health care proposals in Congress. There are many opinions on the subject, and much material to choose from, all with many different methods of appealing to an audience. There are also various methods of communicating this to an audience. For right or wrong, these methods are effective, and sometimes destructive. My conclusion of the research that I have done so far, is that this topic is extremely broad-based, and is one that a logical approach is the best to solve.
I have looked at this issue, and done my best to keep an open mind. I have found along the way, that both sides do have legitimate arguments for their favor. I believe that we need medical malpractice reform, but I also believe we need a public option on the table. Americans are clearly divided on the subject. Most polls show the public split right down the middle on support of these reform plans. The greatest risk that we have as average citizens, it to remain uneducated about a reform plan that will affect all of Americans for generations to come.
In this debate on health care, there is a good deal of emotion involved. Throughout the summer of this year, there have been many crowded, raucous town hall meetings filled with people who are upset over the health care system, whether for or against. Also, many people have become fearful that they could lose the insurance that they have with health reform. Without a doubt, the emotional part of this debate has taken hold of the issue at hand, and Americans all around the country are nervous, or angry about the current system.
There have also been several arguments made on behalf of reform, or against it, on the topic of ethics. Critics of the overhaul claim it will lead to rationing of care, while advocates of it state that millions will remain uninsured. In my analysis of these arguments, I think that while you can use the ethical portion for either side, it is an extension of the emotional appeal to the humanity of the situation. While it is definitely effective in rallying opposition, or support of reform, it is my belief that it does not address the issues in the best possible way.
Other types of arguments have been done based on facts, and statistics. Such as costs of reform plans, projected costs of the health care system in the future, as well as a whole host of other studies done by everything from fact check groups, to Universities. When an individual makes a decision about this health care reform, they should do it with the facts in hand, and the ethical considerations as well. The largest problem facing the debate, is the inability for the individual to look beyond their own beliefs, or the beliefs of others to even consider an opposing view to their own. However, I believe that Americans will look for the truth, whatever that may be on an issue such as this, and they will be interested, and concerned with knowing how reform will affect them.
If health care reform is to truly be passed, then the most important thing for Americans to do is to be educated on the issues. We can't afford to take anyone's opinion and make it our own, we have to be willing to do the research, and make the final decision ourselves. Thomas Jefferson had once stated that "the most important component of any democracy, is an educated populace". Americans must take these words to heart.

Essay Exam for October 14, 2009

The health care debate is a furious one raging in our country today. There are many voices, many opinions and conflicting points of view. No solution will present a perfect answer to such a large problem. Millions of Americans are without health insurance. Millions more, cannot gain access to health care due to health insurance company practices. America spends more on its health care system than any nation in the world, yet ranks thirty-seventh overall in care by the World health organization, just ahead of Serbia. There can be no debate, that overhaul is needed.
However, after a good deal of research on the issue, and considerable soul-searching, I believe that we need the current proposals by congress. To not act, would cause irreparable harm to the financial health of our nation, and continue a vicious cycle that leaves millions without access to the care they need.
There are several issues that will be discussed. The impact of the current system on our economy, the lack of effectiveness of the opposition's plans for health care, and finally, the benefits and provisions of the health proposals by Democrats in Congress.
First, there should be no debate that we desperately need reform now. Our health system is the most expensive in the world at 2.5 trillion dollars a year. The budget for health care, Medicaid, Medicare, and related programs is the single, largest expense in the federal budget. According to the Congressional budget office, Health care costs will only continue to skyrocket in time. America pays too much for what we get out of the health care system. Under current practices, Insurance companies can deny coverage at any time to anyone, under the guise of as pre-existing condition. This can leave Millions of Americans who are paying extraordinary amounts of money in health premiums, without care or coverage at any given time. A Study done by Harvard medical and published in the New york times concluded that roughly 44,000 people a year in the U.S. die from lack of coverage. There can be no question in the minds of Americans that reform is needed.
There are several proposals in Congress for health reform. Some offer a public option, essentially an insurance company run by the Federal Government to offer competition to the private insurance companies. Critics of this idea argue that such a plan would put the private sector out of business and pave the way for complete socialized medicine. There are also statements that this sort of system would lead to a "rationing of health care" and "death panels" that would determine what care you can and cannot receive. The fallacy of these arguments, is that they fail to recognize the rationing that already exists by the private insurance companies under the loophole of discrimination based upon a pre-existing condition. Aside from these matters, there have been very few counter-proposals to Democratic plans in Congress. The few plans that have been proposed, would grant tax credits to average Americans to purchase their own health insurance on the private market. The average plan for a family of four is estimated by several agencies to cost $13,000 a year. Americans can't afford that, especially in a time of economic crises.
Now, the current proposal favored by many Democrats in Congress involves the aforementioned public option. This would create a Government-run insurance company that would offer subsidized coverage for American families and businesses to purchase. Opponents of it say it would put the private sector out of business. Without it however, the private sector would not have any incentive to cut costs, and lower premiums for Americans. This government insurance company would be just like the medicare system, except Americans would pay into it at rates lower then their current premiums. The Federal Government, unlike the private sector, would be running this program at cost only, and not for profit. The end result of such a policy, is lower premiums for Americans and their families, lower costs for businesses, and more money back into the hands of average Americans, instead of insurance companies. Contrary to claims by critics, individuals would still be able to go to the doctor of their choice, the hospital of their choice, the only difference between the government plan, and the current options, are lower costs. This plan would also not be allowed to add to the federal deficit, because under a renewed act by congress, it must be paid for in full. Critics of this plan also assert that individuals will be forced immediately into the public plan. This plan does not do away with insurance companies. President Obama and leading democrats in Congress have stated that it will not be subsidized at impossible-to-compete-with rates.
In closing, there have always been opponents of progress. There have been, and always will be special interest groups that work tirelessly to defeat any kind of reform that threatens their standing at the top of the social and economic order. There will always be skeptics who say that it cannot be done. Yet we must push forward, to create a lasting future for our children and our country. Failure to act will leave Americans with a mounting of costs that will cripple us for years to come. The health insurance reform in Congress is the best option for lowering health insurance costs, creating reasonable competition to encourage the private sector to lower their premiums, and ensuring that Americans can once again enter into a new era of lasting economic growth and prosperity. This is the dream and promise of America, that it can, and always should be, "That shining city on the hill"

Questions for students to answer individually

1. What aspects of this course best support your learning? "The in-class time that provides opportunity to discuss the previous week's course and what was learned so I can put together all the pieces in easier to understand language"
2. What is one thing you would change about this course to further support your learning? "Bi-monthly or monthly tests on what was learned, to show progress and to help prepare for final exams"
3. What is one thing you can do to improve your learning performance in this course? " Spend more time on studying other sections of the book besides required reading"

Conrad Keezer's Journal number four,

In Chapter fourteen, we are introduced to a new way of writing; A classical argument. This style of writing focuses on persuading your audience, who may initially be opposed, or supportive of your position before reading your paper. There Are two main aspects of this. First, the ability to seek out the truth. A writer must be committed to this at all times, to be able to let go of one's own certainties, in favor of finding the truth of an issue. However, the next critical function is the ability to be certain of our position and claims, and to get others to change their views on the subject.
When making an argument, a writer will most probably make unstated assumptions about the values and beliefs of the audience. When the writer makes this assumption, which could be spelled out in the thesis of the argument, the writer also may need to more accurately define their claim in the thesis. The audience may disagree with this unstated assumption, and unless the writer states it, and defends it, then the whole argument could collapse.
In using evidence for an argument, there are several methods that a writer can use. The first example could be something from personal experience. Having an emotional connection to an event may offer the writer an advantage on an issue, and an added ability to appeal to an audience.
Another method would be to summarize a research paper that someone else did, and to include it in your paper. This could also be very effective because having a research paper, especially if it is from a prestigious source, could go a long way to backing up your claim in the argument.
The Writer could also use statistics that have been done by other independent agencies to support or verify their claims. Statistics could be quite helpful in this manner.
When using these various methods, a writer must ensure several points. That the articles are Recent, the articles cited should be the most up to date information available on a subject. Relevant; the sources should be relevant to the point you are making, and should not deter the course of the argument. Impartial; While it may be difficult to obtain completely impartial evidence, evidence that is obtained from scholarly journals is more impartial then perhaps a newspaper article, that may carry a bias in the issue. Sufficient; the Writer should have several different sources to make a justification of a point, this will help prevent hasty generalizations.
In Writing a classical argument, appeals to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are key as well. Using vivid language for pathos and providing powerful examples are two elements that can help an argument. However, something important to remember is that when a writer is making an appeal to Pathos, it is most effective as an appeal to the audience's values and beliefs.
There are also several types of argument methods. There are Definitional issues, particular cases or events that fit into a certain category. Causal issues, issues that ask a question about a policy or idea, and try and figure out what the results of that idea or policy are.
Overall, a review of chapter fourteen shows that the focus of the chapter, is to help an individual develop skills to understand, and write a classical argument.

Rough draft of Sum/Response

Rough Draft of Sum/Response for Conrad Keezer's Composition class, fall 2009


Bureaucracy? Or Opinion? "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care" Posted on September 8, 2009, In a Wall street journal opinion section, Former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument?
First off, Sarah Palin, in her op-ed article, appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. This fits in with the much-opposed health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress, and the near unanimous opposition from major Republican Senators and Representatives.
Ms. Palin then proceeds to appeal to populist support, and show a sense of compassion regarding the un-insured. She refers to a statement made by former President Ronald Reagan that People should not be denied medical care because of lacking the finances to cover them. She also states that we as a people have an obligation to care for the old, and the sick who cannot care for themselves.
She then proceeds to make a case for the business community, by acknowledging the "crippling expenses of health care". She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit. She argues that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making these points, she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, that having been said, Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument, and the Wall street journal is a prestigious news source used by millions of Americans, and businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.
For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Furthermore, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. This is correct. According to director Elmendorf in a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given the nature of the Cato institute, that it is a pro-conservative organization that is opposed to the current health reform proposals, one should take into account this bias when reading their information.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logos here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
So then, in closing, was Sarah Palin's article an effective one? Did it make me challenge my beliefs or ideas about health care? Are her statements accurate and unbiased? And did she adequately use fact to support her position? It is my belief that she did not have an effective combination of these elements. As a writer, she does use good research with some of her arguments, however, there is a possibility that not all of what she states is entirely accurate.
Bureaucracy? Or opinion? Let the reader decide.

Reflective analysis

In my analysis of Ms. Palin's article, I chose the health care topic because it is a current, and important issue. My hope, is that anyone who reads my paper will have at least, a little more understanding of the issue than they did before. Writing this paper, I analyzed this debate and the subject thoroughly. With this analysis came a greater understanding of the major players in the debate, and their individual influences, biases, and beliefs. In every debate, in every subject, world view will affect how one views a particular issue. I want my audience to understand this concept well, to grasp it, and to analyze and critique by themselves what other people have to think about an issue. The ability to do this, to question everything that is spoken, especially on the public scale, is important to being able to dig for the truth, and to understanding what kinds of viewpoints people have, and how they affect their arguments.
In reviewing my paper, I also learned several important aspects of writing a paper. For example, I made several revisions to paragraph structure, and also changed where I placed content and analysis. When I re-analyzed my paper, after receiving peer reviews, I restructured several of the opening paragraphs and combined them into the summary of Ms. Palin's article, which accomplishes several objectives. It makes the overall paper more reader-friendly, and eliminates a large section of repetitious statements. I also changed my conclusion to make a summary of my paper, and a closing statement that reflected the opening paragraph. In several cases in my paper, I used Ms. Palin's evidential arguments, and intensely scrutinized them. I brought out my findings on her evidence in my paper, and showed that in some cases, the facts did not appear to line up; in others, her evidence was conclusive and solid. My paper focused most on an analysis of her appeals to logic, and emotion, and the people groups affected and targeted by these appeals.
It is important to recognize how one's own argument can be perceived. With what "voice" they use. I have worked to indicate a voice that is as calm, and objective as I can possibly be. My approach to this situation, is similar to how I approach other issues that are divisive and multi-faceted. In every case with a controversial subject, one should strive to appeal to the audience in a logical, reasonable way. In cases, appeal to emotion is important; indeed several of the reforms made in history have come because of emotional appeal. I have, however, aimed for a calm and logical appeal in my paper, without much use of pathos in analyzing Ms. Palin's article.
While my personal belief did not change with the critical analysis of this paper, it did challenge me to make sure I consider all sides of every debate before making an assumption. It is easy to simply listen to one side of an issue, and make a decision about it before hearing completely what the other side has to say.
I have spent considerable effort on this paper, but have also learned a great deal doing so. In the future, it is my hope that I will be able to reflect upon the lessons learned here, to better my writing skills an abilities.

Stem cell research

Stem Cell research opinion of Conrad Keezer.

There is much debate about whether or not it should be considered "Ethical" to fund stem cell research. First, I'd like to make a differentiation. There are at least two types of major stem cell research. Embryonic, the more well known and controversial one, and Adult stem cell research, the less known, and hardly controversial method.

First, I'd like to state the failings of embryonic stem cell research before going into details about adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is not only controversial, but arguably less successful than adult stem cell research. One case that happened as recently as February of this year involved a young boy who had a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia. He received an embryonic stem cell treatment for his condition. Four years later he developed severe headaches and was found to have several tumors in his brain and spinal cord. The results of the tests of the tumors show that they genetically matched the embryos used in his treatment.

Now, according to Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former director of the national institutes of health, and once an ardent embryonic stem cell supporter, this case is the fear of many doctors and scientists. Embryonic stem cells often have the potential to mutate into cancerous cells which, while most of the time benign, can cause damage, and sometimes grow as large as a football. Despite best attempts to control and discipline these cells in the laboratory, they still can run wildly out of control, growing into tumors.

Another major problem of these types of stem cells are the rejection of them by the body's immune system. Addressing a convention in Wisconsin in 2007, Dr. James Thomson from the university of Wisconsin stated that this research was still "decades away" from become practical. He did not blame it on federal bans, or a lack of funding, rather a simple fact of biology. Among other problems he stated with the research, was the need for continuous use of dangerous immunosuppressive drugs to ensure that the recipient's own body doesn't reject the tissue and cause massive complications. Another advocate for Embryonic stem cell research, William Hastletine, a former CEO of human genome sciences stated to the press in France in the year 2001 that "The routine utilization of embryonic stem cell research is 20 to 30 years away" and that it would take so long to commercialize the research as products that he would simply not invest in it. Dr. Bernadine Healy also stated that Embryonic stem cell research is simply "obsolete"

My final argument against embryonic stem cell research will be on the bioethical side of the issue. There is a great deal of controversy and debate about the ethicality of using embryos for research. Charles Krauthammer, a former member of the President's council on bioethics stated that he does not believe that human life begins at conception, and that he does not agree with religious arguments against this research. However, he also said that "many secularly inclined people such as myself have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation -- to the point of dismemberment -- of human embryos. You don't need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good."

So, while human embryonic stem cell research is not only facing scientific barriers, it is facing growing ethical barriers from not only the Religious community, but also from the Secular community. As Society continues to become more educated on this issue, the trend seems to be forming that more people are growing opposed to embryonic stem cell research for not only moral reasons, but also for practical scientific reasons.

Now, I will make my argument for the continued funding and support for Adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells are currently in use and have been for several years. Some examples include; bone marrow transplants, and the treatment of several illnesses including cancers, auto-immune disease, cardiovascular disease, immunodeficiency disorders, and neuro-degenerative diseases.

Adult stem cells also are far more controllable than their embryonic counterparts. This means that scientists can control what type of tissue it can turn into for treatment. Scientists can find these cells in almost every major organ now. This means that they can extract stem cells from your heart, or other major organs, and can coax them to mature into several different cell types. This process of extraction is almost as easy as removing a unit of blood according to Dr. Healy.

Another major advantage of adult stem cells, is that there is no chance of rejection. Doctors are able to extract stem cells from various areas of the human body, including olfactory cells from the mucous lining of the nose. They can be obtained without harm to the patient, and with some slight chemical alterations to the cell in the laboratory, they can be used to treat almost any tissue in the human body, with no chance of rejection. This eliminates the need for the immuno-supprsive drugs that would otherwise be needed for embryonic cells.

One of the most recent major success stories of adult stem cells was the case of Claudia Castillo, a woman from columbia whose trachea had collapsed from tuberculosis. Researches from the university of Padua, and the university of Bristol removed a small portion of a trachea donor, and stripped it of the foreign cells, essentially leaving it a hollow section of cartilage. They then took stem cells from Ms. Castillo, and "seeded" the trachea. Over a period of just four days, they were able to grow a new trachea for her that they then transplanted into her. She was not given immuno-suppresive drugs, because there was no concern of rejection. When she was interview four months later, she was alive and healthy with no complications.

Now, to close the arguments on stem cell research, I believe that science has shown researches where to look for cures for the diseases that afflict humanity. This path that science is leading is also the ethical path; it will not require the destruction or harvesting of human embryos to accomplish this task. In light of my research, I believe that the Federal government should pursue funding of adult stem cell research with vigorous support.

Sources; stemcellresearch.org, Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete

March 04, 2009 11:52 AM ET | Bernadine Healy, M.D.,

Embryonic Research Driven by Greed, not Science
(Original title: “The Great Stem-Cell-Research Scam)

By Michael Fumento

New York Post, July 15, 2009
Copyright 2009 The Independent Journalism Project

Wikipedia.org ^ Rose, David (19 November 2008). "Claudia Castillo gets windpipe tailor-made from her own stem cells". The Times. The Times Newspapers Ltd. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5183686.ece. Retrieved 20 November 2008.

Works cited for Sum/resp essay

Works Cited: Obama and the Bureacratization of health care, Sarah Palin. Wall street journal, September 8, 2009 opinion section.
http:///online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
Copyright ©2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Letter to Majority leader Steny Hoyer, from Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of Congressional budget office. July 25, 2009
http://thehealthcarevalueblog.com/2009/07/25/cbo-releases-analysis-of-independent-medicare-advisory-council-imac-act-of-2009/

Final Draft of Sum/Response

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000010365 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000010349

Summary/ Response for Conrad Keezer's Composition class, fall 2009

Is health care reform truly bureaucracy? Or is that statement just an opinion? In an op-ed posted by former Governor, and Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in a Wall Street journal opinion section,"Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care", Ms. Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument? While Ms. Palin makes a potent argument for her side on Health care, using appeals to emotion, logic, and ethics, makes a strong case for her beliefs. however, in the interest of promoting those beliefs, she takes a very emotional approach, and sometimes colors the evidence to suit those views.

Ms. Palin in her op-ed "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care", makes several arguments against current health proposals. At first, she acknowledges the need of a society to care for the elderly and sick, and indicates this as a responsibility of the people.

Ms. Palin appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. Her opposition fits in with many of her Conservative colleagues' beliefs against the current health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress. Many of her fellow conservatives in Congress, have spoken out against and continue to speak out against the current health care reform proposals.

She then acknowledges the "crippling expenses of health care." She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit, and that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.

After making several notable points against the health care reform, such as the aforementioned "Bureaucracy" and "Death panels" she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.

Now, these points about health care having been made Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument. She lists several studies done by other groups, such as the Congressional Budget Office, and the Cato Institute. Also, having her article published in the Wall street journal gives her some more credibility, with millions of average Americans, as well as millions of businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Also, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.

The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. According to the Director Elmendorf and his staff's research, this is correct. In a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer from Director Elmendorf, he states that the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.

Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given that the Cato institute has sided with conservatives on many issues, including taxation, foreign events, and financial regulation (see Cato.org) individuals should consider the probability that they are not completely un-biased.

In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.

At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.

Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logical reasoning here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.

Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.

At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.

As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.

It is my conclusion that Ms. Palin makes several arguments in her paper that are swayed by emotion, rather than logic. Her appeals to pathos are the strongest. While her uses of logos were effective, they were, in some of the cases in her article, either biased with Ms. Palin on the subject, or an incomplete analysis of the facts at hand that present her case in a better light.

Now, from reading Ms. Palin's article, can one make the determination if health care reform is truly creating bueraucracy? Or will the reader decide it is just Ms. Palin's opinion on the issue? You are the reader, it is up to you to decide.

Works cited for Sum/resp essay

Palin, Sarah. "Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care". Wall Street Journal. Web. 8 September, 2009.

Copyright ©2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8, September 2009.

http:///online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html

Elmendorf, Douglas W. Letter. Congressional Budget office. July. 2009.Web.

http://thehealthcarevalueblog.com/2009/07/25/cbo-releases-analysis-of-independent- medicare-advisory-council-imac-act-of-2009/

Journal 1 Journal 1 for Composition 1, Conrad Keezer.

Journal 1 for Composition 1, Conrad Keezer.

One of the main focuses of writers when they create a work, is to creatively pose and solve a problem. Some questions that writers could ask of themselves are;
"What problem should be introduced in my writing?" or, "What does my audience know
about the subject?" These questions are called subject matter, and rhetorical problems.

These are crucial if the writer is going to create a good environment for a
problem and probable solutions to that problem. For Writers, they must exercise their
curiosity about a subject, creatively approach it, and learn how to solve it. Writers constantly question a subject to see if they can come up with different, or better answers.

The types of questions that most stimulate writing are open-ended questions.
These types of questions invite several points of view to a subject, and encourage debate about it. These questions will be problematic, significant to the reader's attention, and should also be interesting to the writer if the writer is going to be persuasive and engaging on the subject.

There are different types of writing, such as closed, and open forms of writing.The closed form of writing has its thesis stated in the introduction of it. All parts of the are clearly linked to the thesis.

An open form has a Theme based narrative. It is organized like a story, with events stated chronologically. One of the advantages of using an open form is the ability to appeal to the emotional side of an issue. To involve the humanity of a subject. This form of writing often violates the rules of a closed form however.

Other skills that are crucial to writing involve the ability to pose problematic questions with multiple answers. To be able to analyze a problem in all of its aspects, to define its key terms, causes, history, and the emotional effect it has. The ability to gatherfacts about the subject you are writing on is also important.

Another key skill is the ability of the writer to surprise a reader. A strong thesis often contains some uncertainty, or challenge. A strong thesis should challenge the reader with a different, or surprising view of the topic the writer has chosen. To surprise, the writer must have an argumentative and debatable issue. It doesn't have to be inherent in issue, but should be to the intended reader's reception. In summary, two ways of creating a surprising thesis are to; challenge a reader's view of the subject, and give your thesis tension.

A surprising thesis is only one part of an essay, however. An essay must have a thesis that is believable. A strong thesis then, should both surprise the reader, and be supported with convincing facts. The writer must take the information pertaining to the subject, and make a generalization from the information at hand. Once the point is stated, the point with its particulars becomes information with meaning. The writer must also, however, be sure to only include information that is relevant to the subject. Without consistency in making the argument, both the reader, and the writer get lost in the writing. Particulars then, must both be applicable to the subject at hand, and present, otherwise the reader would not understand why they should believe the generalizationsgiven to them.

Journal 3

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000003923 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000003907

Conrad Keezer's Journal entry number 3, week of September 14-21, 2009

Chapter 21, finding and evaluating sources.

First off, perhaps the best way to compose and argue a thesis is to formulate a research question. Picking specific items, instead of broad terms is important. For example, choosing to do a paper on "Health care" could be too broad a subject to write an effective paper addressing a certain issue. However, using a subcategory of the contemporary health care debate, one could choose "would government involvement in the health insurance industry be beneficial?"

Once you have chosen your topic question, the next step should be to find information relevant to your subject. For the health care debate, information that is more current would be more relevant than information that is out of date. Also, information on such a subject should include studies done on the effectiveness of Government involvement in other areas, and the effects of free-market prevalence in others.

Now, the most important part in research is to determine the authenticity of your sources. Questions you should ask yourself are, "What is the potential bias of my source?" "Do they have something to gain/lose in this debate?" "What is their motivation in this issue?". Bias, and motive are two things to consider in evaluating a source of information.

Also, another thing to look for, is how professionally accurate is your source? Is it from a popular magazine, that is documented in a more informal style and might not have very stringent guidelines on determining the factuality of information? A tabloid magazine that features articles about Elvis Presley sightings obviously would not be considered legitimate enough for a research paper on health insurance. The best sources of information would be scholarly journals and research papers, followed by Newspapers and news agencies that take painstaking work to verify their sources.

There are five good criteria that should be used when evaluating a source. One, Authority; the ability to clearly tell who created the site, and is responsible for the contents. Two, Advocacy: the site states its position on a particular matter clearly. Three, Coverage: The site will most probably be filtered to support its position in the best possible way. Four, Accuracy: you need to check the facts against other sources. Five, Currency: How current are the articles? Do they have the most recent information on the subject?

In closing, the Web can give a vast amount of research information on an unprecedented scale. However, this information must always be taken with a grain of salt. One has to always carefully analyze the information at hand, and determine what is factual, and what is questionable.

test 2

test 2

Alpha one

Test blog one