Drones Come Home response

               The science feature “Drones Come Home” manages to catch my interest through the title alone. Any possible threat to a person will be at least interest catching. The author starts off making it seem applicable to everyone, but then changes his description to apply to only hobbyists and the military, which are much smaller. This changes the view of drones as a threat to the public because originally they were of no threat to the public. The change in view on drones is what the author is targeting as the argument to be made. This change is what maintains interest throughout the beginning of the article. The rest of the article, however, maintains a similar voice throughout and does not hold interest as well. The author does not make the rest of the article as interesting as the first few paragraphs, which ultimately leads to the readers’ interest waning. The remainder of the paper has too many facts for the average person to enjoy it. There are so many technical names that each drone has and this narrows the audience to a smaller set of readers that will both understand and enjoy reading about them. The broad approach that the author went into his article with is diminished when he becomes more specific about plane types. The same message is in the writing, but it is shrouded by the technicalities. This gives me insight into an effective science feature because I have to choose an audience that I wish to interest and then I must maintain both the chosen audience and their interest throughout the writing. These facets are both integral to a successful feature because one without the other is degrading to the focus of the paper. Drones Come Home lost interest at the end of the paper so the message was not as focused as it could have been.

How Nerf Became the World's Best Purveyor of Guns for Kids

               “How Nerf Became the World’s Best Purveyor of Guns for Kids” by Jason Fagone can be compared to “Black Holes” by Michael Finkel through the use of effective rhetorical strategies. Fagone exhibits a lot of research and thought in his writing that elevates his opinions to the next tier of acceptance. By putting in more detail about the background and setting of his narrative about Jablonski, he relates to the readers’ interest in a story. If he can illustrate his points through a story that is moderately interesting, he will successfully hold the readers’ interest throughout the story. Unlike an essay that is solely argument, a narrative will weave arguments through something that catches the reader’s interest. This helps the author to not have to work as hard to keep interest through the essay’s entirety. This essay was more effective in holding the reader’s interest because the black hole essay did not have a story to have the arguments flow through. Fagone also maintains ethos on a relatively childish topic as well. The safety of children is not childish, but when the word “nerf” is involved, there is a connotation of childishness. He embraces the childishness when talking about grown men playing with guns for a living, but then he immediately refutes it with statements that call nerf guns marvels of engineering. This controversy that the author uses works because he addresses how they can seem childish, but the refutes it with a stronger argument. This style of writing was not used in the Black Hole paper too much except when the author refuted Einstein. By refuting an expert in the field, he strengthens his argument significantly and strikes the readers interest. This is a risky method though because it could destroy the entire argument if you do not effectively refute the expert.

Black Holes

               Black Holes was an effective essay in that it made an obscure and complex topic simple enough so that an average person could read it. The essay could have provided many equations with random variables and factors that are considered, but instead the author chose to use description rather than math to explain his points. This helps the author maintain ethos and the reader’s attention throughout the essay. I feel that when writing about science you have two choices: to write like Michael Finkel with Black Holes and use simpler examples and astounding numbers to hold the interest of a more general public or to write using the most elevated knowledge to accurately convey points to the smarter scientific community. Both of these styles have advantages and drawbacks associated with them. Finkel utilizes this style so that more people can understand his points, but the drawback is that he cannot go too in depth or his audience will lose interest. The converse is true for elevated science writing where many people outside of the science community will not take interest in the writing, but all of the facts are on the table and the knowledge is being spread most effectively. Greater significance that can be taken from this essay includes the expansion of interest in space. Perhaps this author is advocating the controversial expansion of the NASA budget and thinks that if more of the general public takes interest in the topic of black holes, then they will vote to get more money into the space budget. He leaves a lot of open questions to the readers that would definitely spark a thought in an engaged reader. Finkel effectively uses this technique and evokes thought from his readers that will maintain their interest throughout his writing.

Peer Review: Biomedical Engineering

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

The question is not expressed clearly, but I assume it is something along the lines of “Is Biomedical engineering ethical”. The author does not phrase it as a question, but more like an argument.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the reader’s interest with the same tone as the rest of the paper. The interest can be gathered in a more effective manner than the opening paragraph of this paper.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author seems to have some prior knowledge on the subject, but uses research to back the important points up. The author has a stake in the inquiry, she seeks to show that the US should be more open to biomedical engineering.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is consistent throughout and is appropriate to the writing, but the author does not seem inquisitive in her writing.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The voice is consistent throughout.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

I did not find any big ones.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author expresses the paper more like a thesis, but it is smooth.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author  does not question her findings.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

Research is evident and the author uses quotes. The research does lead to more thoughts and elaboration, but not questioning.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintains my interest through the interesting research points and historical bans on biomedical engineering. My attention only lags in the fact that I was looking for more of a question based writing. It can be fixed by phrasing the paper through the exploration of a question.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader broadens the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

There isn’t really an answer because there isn’t really a question. For a thesis ending, I thought it was effective and it summed the ethics of biomedical engineering up.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

The ending is effective for a thesis paper, but this isn’t a thesis. To make it effective as an inquiry, explain how each research point affects the formulation of an answer.

Peer Review: Chips

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

Why can’t I just eat one chip? Is expressed clearly in the first paragraph.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the reader’s interest pretty effectively with a descriptive setting and an initial question.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author does not mention any prior knowledge, but it isn’t really expected for this topic. She does hold a stake in the inquiry through her self experiment.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is appropriate to the paper and is effective to talk about the addiction of chips. The author has a clear inquisitive tone.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The voice is pretty consistent throughout.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

The paper was specific and the author went into the details well for each of her points.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author strings her own story of eating her chip and each part of the journey in with all the research and personal examples. That was a really interesting way of formatting it. It could be a bit jumpy, but you kept each part of your chip story succinct so it flows well.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author does question her findings and explores them further with additional research.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

The author uses many source and quotes to keep questions flowing. A further question could be “What makes us stop”

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintains my interest throughout through her extensive research and interesting style. My attention did not lag.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader continues to broaden the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conclusion works in two parts: the conclusion of the narrative and the answer to why you can’t eat just one chip. The writing does open up further inquiry through the repercussions like getting obesity and how companies use chemicals to fool our brains.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

The paper was effective and I am satisfied with the ending because it had a satisfactory answer to the question.

Peer Review: Cell Phone Addiction

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

Are cell phone addictions comparable to drug and alcohol addictions?

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the readers interest through the relatable question of whether people have been impolite at a table by texting or checking their phone in front of you. It was an effective interest catcher. I’m not sure what import is, but if it is sources that guide the writing, then you did a good job picking sources.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author does not have specialized prior knowledge of the subject, but has experienced the subject matter a sizable amount. She holds a stake in the inquiry through her experiment and her overlook of people on their cell phones that sparked her question.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is very even toned and unbiased. It is effective to the subject material because too much bias could ruin the argument and make it seem like an argument. The author makes it sound like an inquiry.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

Generally, the voice is appropriate to the writing, but at a few points it seems to stray like when you talk about how your mom would react while you were out to dinner and did not have your phone.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

I didn’t notice anything too big.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author makes the paper flow smoothly from the general notice of cell phones being an addiction to experimenting why they are addicting to asking the followup question: what makes it addictive?

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author doesn’t question her own assumptions too much, but explores her reasons for making those assumptions in the first place.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

The author uses a good variety of sources that all provide different relevant information. She effectively uses quotes from each of these sources. She explores other branches of inquiry, but not necessarily from research. I think she expanded well.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintained my interest throughout, especially in the narrative style of the description of her experiment. My attention lagged a little bit in the research dense area around the general question. Perhaps spread out the research a little more throughout.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader broadens the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conclusion relates the ending branch of the inquiry back to the question. The inquiry is expanded. The next step is to investigate why social media is so addictive.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

I am satisfied with the ending because the paper was effective in asking whether cell phones are addictive and expanding it from there. If you were to take the next step and explore what about social media was addictive that would be optimal, but it could be straying too far from your original point.

Discussion of Inquiry Topic

               My inquiry is formed around the question: Why are there more women’s volleyball teams than men’s teams? I chose this topic because I have been involved with the sport at a competitive level for 4 years and the question has always bothered me on some level. As a high schooler, I played in a relatively dense area for good volleyball, but had I lived 20 miles, I would have had none. I consider myself lucky to have been in the situation, but it sparks the question: Why did I have to be lucky. Many schools carry girl’s teams, but not men’s teams and hardly, if ever, is the converse true. I am not sure why I seek the answer now except for the fact that the project presents a good outlet to follow through with it. I suppose that if a wild result comes through via research and analysis, I would share it with the world somehow, but if nothing novel strikes my interest, I will probably leave it as is. Having played for many years prior, I have significant bias in my head and my opinion is definitely charged. I already have my own views as a player who tried to get into a college program and the hope that was diminished when I found out the shockingly low amount of teams that exist at the college level. It always intrigued me how the Olympic teams were both equally good, even though there were significantly more players to choose from for the women’s team than there were for the men’s team. I wanted to keep my story inside the high school and college level, where there is the largest difference in terms of the numbers of players, so I am gathering the opinions and stories of my past teammates.

Invites to the Dinner Table Discussion

               My topic is posed through the question: Why are there more women’s volleyball teams than men’s teams? To express my topic via the dinner table analogy, here are some of the people I would invite to my dinner table discussion. First, I would invite a player who has been through the process of looking for a Division 1 scholarship and goes to a school where both a men’s and a women’s team exist. I hope to learn about how the process works and how competitive it is. Second, I want to invite my high school team’s mvp who has been involved with sport for 10 years. I value his opinion because he can give me insight as what his options are as a senior in high school. Third, I would invite the 2008 gold medal setter from the US men’s national team, Lloy Ball. He wrote a book a few years ago that I read and I can use his opinion to assist my question solving. Fourth, I would invite the athletic budget committee because I want to know if money plays a roll in whether or not the men’s team is feasible for this university to accommodate. Fifth, I would invite the author of USA today articles concerning volleyball because they talk about a potential spike in the men’s sport at the younger level. Sixth, I would invite the head coach for the women’s team at this university to get his opinion on the feed between high school players and college players. I would be looking for a correlation that perhaps the women’s game is different in some fashion that makes it more attractive to play.

Student Inquiries Comparison

            The two student inquiries that I read and analyzed are “Reaching Beyond Hell” and “Why do we need sleep? That is zzz Question.” Both of these inquiries were strong in their research and experimentation. Both authors chose strong sources from experts in the fields that they were drawing from. They drew from these sources in an effective manner and did not take away from their own ethos. Experimentation in these inquiries is the driving force behind their findings. Both authors harbor their realizations and new knowledge in personal experience and narrative. This is especially true in the essay about “Reaching Beyond Hell” because this author uses personal experience more than the other author. The author of the sleep essay uses more sources than the author of the Hell essay uses though and holds a stronger approach to the essay. Both essays were effective in creating a testable experiment for the question to be built upon. The sleep essay could have followed in the path of the Hell essay in using a comparison in the test to help show just how effective the findings are. The Hell essay compared the will to perform individually to the will to perform in a group, which made a clear distinction in the data. The sleep essay compared the school sleep schedule to the spring break sleep schedule, but perhaps the author could have looked into other people’s schedules as well. By using one person as the representation of the entire population, the results can be skewed very far away from the actual representation. In this case, I think the author was still successful because they were representing a narrow group of college students in the US rather than the entire population that sleeps. That level of personality can also keep the audience in mind as well.

Broadway Gang Response

            The Broadway Gang by Jon Raymond seemed more like a thoughtful narrative than an inquiry. There were rich descriptions of the settings, encounters, and history of the area, but a clear defined question was not altogether noticeable. The main idea of the story is the Portland riots and the eventual clash between the police and the protestors. The overall idea of a riot or protest seems out of place with the status quo of a city, which drives this writing seemingly to make a point. The author never really does state a point, but rather banks on the gut reactions of the readers to feel that the riots are askew. If someone reading this writing is a protestor who happens to think riots are alright, then the writer has no chance at selling a deeper thought to them and did not write effectively enough. This strategy is not effective because the author does not provide a question that readers can reflect upon. I do not think that I will use this strategy in my own writing because I want to firmly address the question I am writing about and leave a lasting thought with my audience. In terms of Huxley’s main points, I think that the author succeeds in a personal, authoritative tone. He tells the story with numerous connections back to his family at home and he includes personal reflection on whether he wants to continue to be involved in protesting anymore. I think his argument would be much more effective in the dinner conversation format rather than the three directions because he does not effectively grasp the other directions besides personal. His writing was not very universal or poetic as a whole. The conversation may have his family, the protestor he interviewed, the police, and the middle class. 

Is Google Making Us Stupid? response

               Nicholas Carr shares his fear of something tinkering with his brain to his readers in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid”. Carr establishes the juxtaposition to his fear in the form of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. The reason that Carr is paranoid about this change in his mental framework is that his attention span is waning and he can no longer focus for lengths of time that he was once capable of focusing. His transition to the research behind his claims was effective for several reasons. One of the main factors that caught my attention was the amount of personal narrative that he included at the beginning of his argument. This was effective because he appeals to the average reader’s need for a break from facts with a story. In fact, that is the very point of his article. His phrasing is effective in catching the reader’s attention as in a story does and then he eases into a voice that switches towards the research end of his writing. Readers identify with the same opinion as his because he makes them consider the same viewpoints and scenarios in their own lives. The author’s choice to make the title the same as the question he is attempting to answer is a strong foundation for his writing. Starting out with the question makes the readers think from the first sentence that he is out to prove his answer to that question or that he is there to ponder deeper thoughts on the question. A caveat to this is that if the topic does not interest many readers, then he loses audience before he even has a chance to catch interest. His thesis is out in the open before he has any opportunity to hook people into his claims.