Reflection: Informative Review Paper

 

Jefferson Ortega

ENGL 21003

Debra Williams

March 4, 2017

 

Reflection Paper: Cloning

 

Throughout my paper, I held many rhetorical situations since it is an important factor to sway the audience in your favor. My thinking throughout the paper wasn’t as elaborate as I could have made it but, on the other hand, this paper was intended for the secondary audience so packing it with dense information was not needed. As for my writing process, it was different than the process for my other normal papers for other classes.

In science writing, when you use rhetorical situations you must acknowledge the genre, audience, exigence, stance and media/design. You must understand the genre that you will use to effect your desired audience and take into account the needs or exigences of your paper when deciding upon your stance as it is a vital part of designing your paper. Following this procedure will make your writing much more efficient and persuasive. When writing an informative review it is important to understand what goes in these works. Informative review is for the general public and its purpose is to explain to them a concept in which is foreign to them as it is usually only for the primary audience, this being scientist and researchers and experts of the sorts. It is important to know as much about your audience as possible when writing your paper.You mustn’t teach a cow how to lay an egg.  If you guide your work to the right audience it will be much more efficient. The best papers would be useless in the wrong crowd.

In my paper I used certain rhetorical strategies to get my desired influence over the audience. I made sure I dragged in the audience in my opening paragraph using a bit of humor and then began to explain cloning.I introduced my papers motivating issues in a way that would benefit my audience. My papers format was made to first introduce the audience to the topic and explain basic vocabulary that I would use later in the paper. I started off with the cons before the pros for two reasons: first I wanted to make sure that I did not offend anyone who opposes cloning by starting with the pros first, then I started off with the cons and then the pros to soften the blow of the negative aspects of cloning. I also used rhetorical strategy while stating my cons. After I stated the cons of cloning I would then add on a counterclaim in a passive way, this way I could diminish the damage done by the cons and also save my opposing audience. Another factor that helped me attain and hold my audience is the exigence of my paper as it was the betterment of the human society and this is a concern that we all share and can relate too.

I used the visual image that I did because it shows exactly what cloning is and it also sides with both the pro and the opposing audience. When the pro audience sees the image, it makes them more curious of the possibilities of cloning and reinforces their desire for it. When the opposing audience sees they think this is exactly what’s wrong with human cloning. The motive of the image is not to persuade but to drag the audience into reading the paper. I knew my paper worked well when we did the collaborative session in class as it gave me well needed feedback on what I was missing and also what worked in my paper.

Technology was an important factor in the creation of my paper since without it I wouldn’t have been able to make it as strong as it was. The homework on blackboard helped immensely in the creation of my paper as it helped build a base to my paper before I even started writing. I also used technology while searching for my third source to use in my paper. I searched for my source with the aim of finding information that would reinforce my persuasive comments on cloning. The other part of finding and reading the sources was understanding them. Two of the sources were very easy to comprehend as they were made for secondary audiences already but the third source was not for a secondary audience. It was dense and filled with complexed ideas and was not easy to follow. For this source I tried not to understand the whole paper but to get the gist of it and understand parts that I would use in my paper. This helped as I did not need to spend too much time deciphering the paper and still got needed information out of it.