Reflection on Project 2

Rhetorical Analysis-The Final Copy

Punctuation, Part 2

Paragraph Analysis 2

Revised Conclusion

Revised Introduction

Refection on Project 2 Draft

Punctuation, Part 1

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In any piece of writing, it is important to cite your source correctly so it is known where you got the information and so credit can be given to the original source. This blog post includes my attempt at summarizing and paraphrasing a quote from my article for Project 2, "A Fracking Good Story."

Dombrowski, Quinn. "The 'Library'" 6/10/2010 via Flickr. Attribution License

Original Source
"Climate economists repeatedly have pointed out that such energy innovation is the most effective climate solution, because it is the surest way to drive the price of future green energy sources below that of fossil fuels. By contrast, subsidizing current, ineffective solar power or ethanol mostly wastes money while benefiting special interests."

My Paraphrase of Original Source
Lomborg identifies fracking as the best solution to climate change, claiming that climate economists have stated that it will make environmentally sustainable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels in the future. He states that renewable energy sources are ineffective, so the government funding of such practices is not spending money for the best interest of society as a whole.

My Summary of the Original Source
Lomborg uses climate economists to back his claim that fracking is the most cost efficient energy source to fight climate change rather than renewable energy sources, which he deems ineffective and costly.

Project 2 Outline

This blog post will include my outline for the rhetorical analysis I will conduct for Project 2. Outlining the content of your essay before drafting is important so that all is included that should be.

Alborz, Shawn. "Organize" 4/2/2007 via Flickr. Attribution License

The reading on how to structure each section of our essay clarified some important conventions of a rhetorical analysis for me. With regards to the introduction, it advised that I "set up [my] particular perspective or reading of the text" (Minnix 122), so instead of discussing the ideas of the article I would need to choose the ideas and their relation to the argument I will present. I also found it important to make sure more my claims "go beyond simply stating the strategy they address" (Minnix 124). Analyze, don't summarize. The reading suggested focusing on "[analyzing one or two strategies" (Minnix 124) which was the most important concept for me in planning my outline. It helped me realize that I should deeply evaluate a few strategies instead of just mentioning a lot more so I don't spread myself too thin.


Outline

Introduction:

• problem of climate change
• explain what fracking is and why there is a controversy, or why energy production is at question in general
• what is common goal of society: identify audience values
• reduce emissions
• eventually switch to renewables or sustainable methods (get away form coal)
• do what is economically feasible and responsible
• thesis statement: Lomborg is aware of the beliefs held by his audience in this context, which are based on the importance of simultaneously looking out for the environment and the financial well-being of society. He supports fracking with credible outside sources in a way that answers to these beliefs, making his argument appear more credible and logical to the audience and therefore effectively conveying his message.

Body Paragraph 1: Use of statistics to show environmental positives of fracking

• emissions reductions: statistics show its effect on cleaning up atmosphere
• explain how repetition of emission reductions emphasizes the environmental positives
• how does highlighting emissions statistics and environmental positives play on cultural values: people want what will reduce climate change, emissions reductions shows fracking is heading in right direction. logic

Body Paragraph 2: Use of statistics and expert opinion to convey economic benefits of fracking

• statistics: gas prices drop
• low energy costs: more spending on other things
• "climate economists" say fracking is best because it will bring green energy costs in future below that of fossil fuels
• how does using economic benefits appeal to logic by audience: emissions dropping and prices dropping as well: best of both worlds. brings green energy costs down to drive away from fossil fuels. logical best fit for an energy source that is putting more money in pockets of the audience, appeals to their values: cost analysis is important. evidence used is also factual so it is believable, more logical argument. 

Body Paragraph 3: Use of statistics to refute proposition of renewable energy switch

• emissions reductions in fracking compared to wind and solar
• cost of these renewable energy sources while taking into account their little effect on emission reduction
• European subsidizing of renewable sources has cost more and done less to reduce emissions compared to fracking: statistics
• explain how this refutation plays on audience idea of a rapid switch to renewable energy being ideal. uses info from above paragraphs and money and environmental objectives of audience in opposite way, comparison to fracking benefits. logical flow, answers audiences questions of a possible other outcome by saying no, there isn't. 
• makes argument look like it take into account all other options and explains why fracking is best, logic and credible argument based on a foundation of knowledge.

Conclusion:

• explain how the order, flow of these strategies answers the questions/values of the audience
• explain how the effective answer to these values makes the argument effective
• consider how this article will make people take action/stand against anti-frackers and promote government support of fracking based on democracy 

Reflection: I read Ayra and Brandon's posts that included their outlines and I think one thing I learned that I could work on is including specific examples in my outline. I think my explanations for my intentions in each paragraph were pretty thorough compared to the posts I read but mentioning specifics in my outline will certainly make writing the essay easier. I think I'm on the right track with how I'm structuring my paragraphs and what elements of rhetoric I use in each one. I think I'm ready to write this essay!

Draft Thesis Statements

This blog post includes my attempt at drafting thesis statements that will effectively present my argument and lead my essay in the right direction towards a good rhetorical analysis. I provide pertinent information on the rhetorical situation and strategies used in the article which I will use to come up with some example theses and then reflect on them. The article I am analyzing can be found here.

Rutter, Richard. "Lightbulb" 9/8/2008 via Flickr. Attribution License

Rhetorical Situation and Strategies

Author-

• Bjorn Lomborg, professor at Copenhagen Business School, director of environmental economics research institute. 
• Author of three books that show skepticism of environmental concerns. 
• Career focus on environmental economics, therefore tries to find solutions to environmental problems that are the best, economically.

Context-

• Published in 2012, fracking is still an issue, not widely accepted yet. 
• The global acceptance of climate change exists. Society has taken on a commitment to do what is best for environment while also meeting global demands.
• Money is a major influence in decision making in society
• Renewable energy sources are ideal, eventual switch is the goal

Audience-

• Target audience is anyone who cares about the environmental and economic well being of the US, specifically, as well as the world
• Audience has cultural values mentioned above: wants the energy source that is environmentally safe and will lead to a sustainable world but economically efficient as well

Message/Purpose-

• Author argues that the recent switch to fracking is responsible for economic success and carbon emission reduction and is therefore the best option for the US and other nations with fracking opportunities
• Author attempts to criticize other methods of new energy production policy, plea to not follow in the footsteps of the failed tactics
• Author wants to convince the audience (the general population) that fracking is a good thing and should be supported rather than banned

Ethos-

• credible sources- makes author look knowledgeable about fracking, enhances his argument
• appeals to audience values- makes him seem like a bearer of truth, he is explaining what is best for society as a whole so they have more trust in him
• word choice- evokes his bias rather than supports significance of benefits like he would plan for
• acknowledgment of counterargument- when refuted, supports his credibility because he seems aware of counterclaims and has the capacity to explain why they are wrong. when not refuted- makes his argument seem weak, can't argue against main point of opposition

Pathos-

• no strategies to create an emotion
• purposely doesn't create pathos so argument is viewed as being more professional

Logos-

• statistics- argument is based on factual evidence and therefore correct
• effective organization of ideas- follows the flow of what the audience might want to know, answers questions for them in the order they would want

Thesis Statements

"Lomborg is aware of the beliefs held by his audience in this context, which are based on the importance of simultaneously looking out for the environment and the financial well-being of society. He supports fracking with factual evidence in a way that answers to these beliefs, making him appear more credible and logical to the audience and therefore constructing an effective argument."

• I dig this thesis because it uses the rhetorical situation of the article to explain how the rhetorical strategies are applied. I'm worried that the thesis supports the effectiveness of the rhetoric used too much so fitting in the ineffectiveness of the rhetorical strategies wouldn't make sense in relation to the thesis.

"Lomborg uses credible sources to support fracking and then to refute its counterclaims, which results in the construction of a logically flowing argument that also appeals to the values of the audience, in the context of the energy debate. However, the subjective word choice that he uses to evaluate the significance of this evidence contributes to the preexisting notion of bias Lomborg may have towards fracking, therefore damaging the credibility of his argument."

• This thesis has a lot in it which is a good and bad thing. I'll have a lot to explain in my body paragraphs, which will demand an in depth analysis of several strategies that can either result in a great essay or a complete hodgepodge. I'll need to make sure I keep the focus of the essay in line with the thesis.

Reflection: I think I did a very good job in developing my thesis statements because they include elements of the rhetorical situation, the strategies used to apply to the situation, and how they affect the effectiveness of the article. I read Ayra and Carter's thesis statements and I am definitely on the right track. Ayra had trouble in recognizing specific strategies in her thesis statements and Carter had a well-developed statement but lacked an overall evaluation of the strategies he mentioned. Both of them had an emphasis on ethos, which I will have in my essay as well.

Analyzing My Audience

In this blog post I will be identifying and analyzing the audience for the rhetorical analysis I will be writing for Project 2. The post will follow my responses to specific questions regarding the audience.

Fisch, Martin. "the audience is shaking" 8/24/2012 via Flickr. Attribution License

Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs and assumptions?

I am writing for new students in my academic field which is chemical engineering. These students are concerned with how chemical engineering can be used to create systems that most efficiently meet the global resource demands while also taking cost effectiveness into account. They assume that the best method is one that balances production, risk, and cost the best, therefore an argument that conveys these best will be an argument that is most persuasive.


What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

If the students are chemical engineers then they probably support the use of fracking because the process is the very product of chemical engineers. Fracking involves the use of chemicals and hydraulics to release natural gas, so an interest in chemical engineering would most likely correlate with an interest and support in the fracking process. This can't be generalized though, because any student could have a different perception on what is the best method of energy production whether it is chemical engineering related or not. I will respond to this by communicating what the author's points are in the article by explaining which aspects of the debate on fracking he is playing on and which aspects he is leaving out.


What will they want to know?

They want to know what are the benefits of fracking and what aspects of the debate are relied upon to present an argument in support of the process. They want to know how the rhetorical situation and strategies used make the argument of the article either well constructed or not.


How might they react to my argument?

I think they will accept my critique on the effectiveness of the rhetoric in the article. They will follow the examples I provide to support or refute the argument of the author because my mention and explanation of the effectiveness of these examples will be communicated in a way that makes sense. Their lack of prior knowledge on the analysis of rhetoric in the field will make communicating my argument less shocking and difficult as there won't be any preexisting ideas by the audience.


How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

I relate to the audience, first in the fact that we are commonly interested in chemical engineering, and second in the fact that we are both concerned with evaluating the best method for energy extraction. I will use these values to explain why the author's emphasis or ignorance of a certain aspect of the argument plays on these values and how this results in an effective or ineffective persuasion.


Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

I will use the concepts of rhetorical situation and strategies like author, context, ethos, logos, etc., to organize the us of such concepts and how they result in an effective or ineffective argument. If I can organize these topics into familiar essay format by bringing forth evidence and explaining its use, then the audience will relate and understand to the message I am communicating.


Refection: I think I put a solid amount of time and effort into this analysis. I read Carter and Ayra's posts for a reflection and I think I met and surpassed the mere length of an acceptable explanation for each question. I identified that the audience wants to know about how the author's argument is constructed rather than if the argument is valid, which they both seemed to touch on, yet not delve into completely like I think I did.

Cluster of "A Fracking Good Story"

The following blog post includes the cluster, or mind map as I like to call it, of my rhetorical analysis of "A Good Fracking Story," the article I have chosen as the basis of Project 2.

Screenshot taken by Wieder, Tobin. 10/17/2015 via Coggle.

I separated the elements of a rhetorical analysis into three sections: rhetorical strategies used, cultural values within, and the rhetorical situation. With each, I made a branch for any example I could think of for each element of the rhetoric and explained further how it effected the argument being made. I hope you enjoy my mind map which you can find here.

Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies in "A Fracking Good Story"

In the following blog post I will analyze the rhetorical strategies in the article I selected for Project 2.

Nguyen, Marie-Lan. "A marble bust of Aristotle" 11/11/2006 via Google. Public Domain License

Appeals to Credibility or Character

Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Credibility and Character (Ethos)" on page 182 can you recognize in your text?

References to credible sources, word choice, acknowledgement of counterarguments and refutations, and appeal to the audience's values and beliefs are used in the text.

How and why would the author(s) use these strategies?

Each of these is used to build the credibility of the author. Reference to outside sources enhances the believability of the information being conveyed. Word choice like "dramatic" and "impressive" referring to the outside information brought up is used to emphasize the significance of the claims the author is providing. The acknowledgment of counterarguments is used to combat any perception of bias. The entire article is written to appeal to the audience's values so they can be swayed in the author's favor.

How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author's/authors' credibility and character?

The use of outside sources and acknowledgement of outside sources enhance his credibility as someone who has researched this topic thoroughly. The word choice used makes it almost too obvious that the author is doing the most to try to convince the reader of his argument so it makes him less credible in that sense.

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message?

The use of these strategies are essential to the effectiveness of the text's message. They support and show the significance of the claims of the article and provide the audience with ethos, which is a trust in the knowledge of the author and therefore trust in how he has communicated his ideas.

Does/do the author(s) seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?

The article is obviously supporting the use of fracking and the presentation of information that only supports the argument indicates that the author is somewhat biased toward the industry.


Appeals to Emotion

Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)" on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text?

None of the items on the list appear in the text in a way to evoke an emotional response.

What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?

The lack of tools to create an emotional response is conducted so that the article is viewed professionally. The creation of an emotional response would take away from the desired concreteness in the communication of the author's article, therefore the emotional response the author attempts is a lack thereof. 

What is the actual result?

The result in the lack of use of strategies to create emotion in the reader does what is was intended to do, which is make the reader view the article professionally so that they feel the importance in the information being provided.

Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

Emotions are ineffective for this audience and rhetoric situation because of the basis of this argument on a logical presentation of evidence. If emotion is created, then the article would not be taken as seriously.

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author(s) or the logic of the text?
The lack of emotional appeal enhances the credibility of the author and the logic of the text because it makes the author's argument more professional and less biased. The reader is presented with strictly facts and their explanation to support a claim, which is what a persuasive article on a professional topic ought to do.


Appeal to Logic

Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Logic or Rational Decision Making (Logos)" on page 183 can you recognize in your text?

Historical records and statistics, expert opinions, and an effective organization of ideas are present in the text as a means of appealing to logic.

What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?

The author uses historical records and statistics as well as expert opinions to show that his argument is based on and supported by factual evidence. The author seeks to make the information appear sound and believable. The effective sequencing of ideas, by first presenting what fracking has already helped with and then explaining why other methods have not helped makes the argument easy to follow and answers the questions that the reader would have in the sequence that they would have them.

What is the actual result?

The result is a logical communication of why fracking is the most beneficial energy source and the facts to support it. The audience is presented with claims and supporting evidence in an order that makes sense, allowing for an effective persuasion to the argument of the author.

Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

These strategies are effective for this rhetorical situation and audience. The topic is serious so the best way to communicate the benefits of fracking is by an emphasized use of logos, which is present in the text.


Reflection

Reading Ayra and Savannah's analysis of rhetorical strategies made me believe that I put an assuringly sufficient amount of effort in developing my own analysis. My responses were visually longer and contained a bit more evidence to support my thoughts than the two, but this is not to take away from the level of their analysis. Their's, like mine, has less to say on pathos due to the common scientific/professional nature of our topics, however their similar development of ethos and logos showed me that I am on the right track.

Analyzing Message in "A Fracking Good Story"

In the following blog post I will analyze the message in my chosen text, "A Fracking Good Story," through responses to specific questions.

Arvanitakis, Giannis. "Power transfer" 5/23/2014 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License

Out of all the bullet points listed for "Message and Purpose" on page 181, which two or three seem most relevant to the goals of your text's author/s? Why?

• persuade an audience of something
• express an idea or opinion
• move the readers to feel a certain way

The whole purpose of the article is to show how fracking is the most efficient energy source to combat climate change and convince the reader that they should support its use.

Which bullet points do not seem relevant to the goals of your text's author/s? Why not?

• respond to a particular occasion or text
• reflect on a topic
• advocate for change
• analyze, synthesize, or interpret

The fracking controversy can't be traced to a specific event or text, so that bullet point is irrelevant. The author doesn't reflect or analyze the fracking industry, he presents an argument instead. As far as advocating for change, the fracking industry is already established so he is doing the opposite, he is speaking out against the possibility of change.

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author(s)/speaker(s) is/are trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

The message is pretty straightforward: fracking is benefiting the United States and should therefore continue to be used, however references to the failed policies of renewable energy and taxes enacted in Europe suggest that the author is also aiming to convince Americans, and perhaps anyone who reads the article, that those policies should not be attempted elsewhere.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

This blog post includes my analysis on my own values and beliefs with respect to the culture of my chosen article, "A Fracking Good Story." I will respond to specific questions regarding my assumptions on the topic I have chosen.

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. "Satellite View of the Americas on Earth Day"
4/22/2014 via Flickr. Attribution License

1. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do you share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

I support all of the values that the text relies on in its argument. I support the push to produce energy in the most environmentally friendly way possible because of my awareness of the existence of climate change, which is cited throughout the text, and my corresponding moral responsibility to do what is best for the future generations. I also agree that the institutions responsible for making these large scale decisions on energy production ought to do what is in the best interest of the United States, financially, because I am personally affected by the economic stability of my country.


2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do you not share? Why not?

I don't disagree with any of the major values or beliefs that are portrayed in this text. The article is meant to appeal to someone with the best interest of the environment and financial stability of the United States in mind, which applies to me and pretty much any US citizen, so there is a reason that my values correlate with the text's.


3/4. If the text is written in a culture distant or different from your own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture? If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?

The text is written in the same culture as my own, as I am an American citizen in a time period only three years in the future where climate change and fracking are still prevalent issues. No further major development have been made in the fracking controversy that change the significance of the article, therefore the values and beliefs are consistent.



Reflection: I read Ayra and Kyle's posts for this reflection and they both answered in similarly concise  explanations and this may be because their articles focus on the same controversy: animal testing. I think my analysis was a little more thorough in explaining my answers, however my article is different than theirs so there may have been more to discuss. Either way, this reflection assured me that I have thoroughly picked apart the values of myself and their relation to the text's.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

This blog post includes my responses to specific questions about the cultural setting of my chosen article for Project 2.

Identifying the cultural setting is the obvious first step. This article was originally published on September 12, 2012. The medium that first published the article was Project Syndicate which is based in Prague, Czech Republic, where the author was living at the time.

The author of the article, Bjørn Lomborg, is originally from Denmark but has studied and worked in the United States.

The article is written using information from the US switch to natural gas in the last decade to discuss how the industry should be handled in the US in the present day.

Bodin, Ulf. "Bench" 9/9/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License

1. What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

It is the common goal of human society to do what is best for the environment and world in general so that future generations can live in more prosperity.

The Kyoto Protocol is a "law" that serves importance in the text. It refers to the 2005 international treaty that devotes nations to reduce greenhouse gases due to the recognized existence of climate change and the fact that carbon dioxide emissions have caused it. It's a law that enforces the already accepted responsibility of humans to find a way to reduce the damages done to the environment already.

Another norm that most may not like to accept is the unspoken rule that nothing will get done until if it is not cost efficient. No institution is willing to enact a policy if they do not have the money for it.

2. Does the text address these cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly or indirectly?

The text doesn't address the values directly, however every point made in the article is based on its support of the cultural beliefs above. All of the supporting arguments state the cost efficient or emission reducing effects of fracking without needing to explain why those effects are good things. The Kyoto Protocol is mentioned in the article but it's not explicitly pointed out as relating to a value or belief, rather as an event. 

3. What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?

The whole structure of the article is based on these cultural values. The author welcomes the commitment to using energy that is environmentally friendly as every one of his environmentally focused points on emission reduction is mentioned because it supports this effort to find green energy. Each of the financial claims made in the text rely on the universal principle that supports doing what will cost the least amount of money.

Cultural Analysis of "A Fracking Good Story"

In this blog post, I will conduct a cultural analysis on the article "A Fracking Good Story."

The Pinedale Field office of the BLM. "A natural gas drilling rig on the Pinedale Anticline, just west of Wyoming's Wind River Range" 1/14/2007 via Google. Public Domain License

The keywords (phrases) I selected from the article are climate change, carbon emissions, and cost. These words and phrases are repeated throughout the article and serve as the basis for the argument that the author is making supporting the fracking industry.

A working thesis statement for this article would be something like: the environmental and economic effects of the recent transition to natural gas as a primary energy source in the US has revealed that fracking is the most practical and cost efficient way to reduce carbon emissions and therefore combat the effects of climate change.

Free write:

 The concept of climate change is becoming accepted and feared by scientists and the general population more and more as time passes, so the constant mention of the benefits of fracking with respect to how they will go against climate change make them seem significantly more valuable and make fracking sound like the best option moving forward.

Among those who accept climate change as a reality, it is generally known that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, factories, and power plants is a huge cause of climate change and the destruction of the atmosphere, so the numerous times that fracking is claimed to have reduced carbon emissions makes the reader believe in the process more as an environmentally healthier option for an energy source.

The repetition of "cost" and "price" are used so frequently in the article because it is known that money rules the world so when fracking is claimed to cost less than different energy production methods, the reader is more likely to support the author's argument because they will view fracking as a process that will benefit the economy of the US and their own finances as well.

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

This blog post will include my analysis of the rhetoric used in three sources of opinionated speech regarding the controversy of fracking.

JohnDiew0107. "Public Speaking" 7/12/2006 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License

1. GASLAND – FRACKING HELL: The Truth Behind HydroFracking / Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals Linked to Fracking (Nat Geo) – True Democracy Party

Author- The specific person responsible for composing this article is unknown, referred to as "Admin" at the beginning of the article, which means that whoever is in control of the website is the author. The article was posted on truedemocracyparty.net which according the website, is some sort of radical political faction that advocates for "the voice of the American people" by criticizing current institutions of health and industry in the US.

Audience- The author of this article is speaking to the general American public, specifically anyone who can vote in an election.The article is designed to reveal the truths about the fracking industry to anyone who comes across the article by Google search so that they are motivated to use their right as a citizen and advocate and vote for the halting of fracking in the US.

Context- The article was posted in December of 2013 so it is mostly relevant to the issue of fracking today. The article was posted on the website for the True Democracy Party, which is a site containing several other articles that criticize American institutions to "reveal the truth" to all citizens. The article uses the anti-fracking message of the 2010 documentary Gasland to initiate the disapproval of the industry's prevalence in the US. Several suggested articles at the bottom of the page also use the movie title in their headlines.


2. How Fracking Is Fueling A Power Shift From Coal To Gas

Author- The speaker in the broadcast is Marie Cusick, a reporter for National Public Radio, who has been focused on natural gas production since the 2011 boom. In 2014 she received a national Edward R. Murrow award for her coverage of the Pennsylvania natural gas industry.

Audience- The broadcast/article targets anyone who would like to know more about the natural gas industry, or the energy industry in the United States as a whole. NPR is not certainly politically biased, so the target audience does not exclude a political faction. The transition from coal to natural gas as an energy source and the benefits that go along with it are mostly discussed, so the article assumes that the audience is concerned with the environmental and economic sustainability of energy production.

Context- The broadcast was aired in June of 2015, making it very relevant to the current status of natural gas production. Posted by NPR, the story is not obviously biased based on political ideology however the article is mostly supporting the transition to natural gas so there is some bias. Environmental concerns with respect to climate change are brought forth, which is a very prevalent issue in current society. The link to the broadcast contains advertisements for natural gas industries before and beside the video, so NPR clearly has affiliation and a reason to portray the increase in natural gas production in a positive way.


3. A Fracking Good Story

Author- The author of this article is Bjørn Lomborg, a professor at the Copenhagen Business School and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in the US, a research institute focused on environmental economics. He is known for his three books that show skepticism for the threat of major environmental issues. The author is clearly one with bias as he is known for his downplay of environmental concerns but his credentials are valid in environmental economics so he is credible in that aspect.

Audience- The audience is anyone who would like to know more about energy production in the United States, however the article targets the general population (anyone who comes across the article) so that they can be informed of the economic and environmental benefits that fracking has brought in the past decade.

Context- The article was first published in September 2012 by Project Syndicate (membership required to view article), a news service that provides commentary on global issues. The article is a few years behind however its message and supporting evidence is still relevant to the current state of the controversy of fracking. The article on Slate is surrounded by suggested news articles on a wide variety of topics but none that relate to fracking.



Reflection- I read Carter and Jessica's blog posts for this reflection and I think my analysis was very well done. I think I spent a solid amount of time identifying the rhetorical situation and the effect each aspect had on the argument. Seeing how they identified the most rhetoric article as the one with the most solid argument helped me realize the focus of this project and narrow down my sources to the one that supports their position the best.

Developing a Research Question

This post includes a proposal of research questions pertaining to my field of study which is Chemical Engineering.

Oberazzi. "Questions" 12/9/2006 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License.

In Project 1, I investigated the controversy of fracking. The research I did allowed me to delve into several different aspects of the debate including ethics, economics, and even politics. The following research questions touch on these points of view on the fracking controversy.

1. How are chemical engineers and other scientists involved in the legislative process? How do they communicate their findings to politicians?

A common theme in the articles I read was that scientists still struggle with conveying their findings to politicians who can actually impose their policy. I'm interested in the process of how they communicate the importance of their findings, particularly if their are any complications.

2. To what extent is the support of fracking based on the economic advantages of the process? What is an advantage and what is made to look like an advantage?

I found that the financial benefits were a large part of the pro-fracking argument, so I'm interested in what their major claims are and what is possibly misconstrued as an economic advantage to help defend the process' good standing.

3. How has the fracking controversy been pushed forward by the use of emotion?

The fracking debate is a very important issue for those who have been affected by the process' operations. 'Gasland' was released which showed the personal stories of victims of groundwater contamination so I'm wondering how this movie and other movements that use emotion have played a part in the anti-fracking movement.

Final QRG

I can't believe it's all done. Here's a link to the final draft of my Quick Reference Guide on the fracking controversy.

Ritt, Stefan. "Canada's fireworks at the 2013 Celebration of Light in Vancouver, BC"
7/31/2013 via Google Images. Public Domain License.

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

Here lies the guide to everything you ever wanted to know about fracking. Yes, this blog post contains the first draft of my controversy's quick reference guide.

Heath, Terrance. "typos" 6/19/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

To the peer reviewers: I hope I didn't do this completely wrong, but if I did, let me know in a nice way. I worked way harder than I should have on this first draft but I don't think that's a bad thing at all. The main thing I'm concerned with is that I might be going into too much depth for a QRG, so if you feel that way, make it apparent and maybe give me some hints. Also, I'd like to know if I'm being too formal or informal. Just tell me something as I want to know if I wasted time putting my heart and soul into this draft.

Oh yeah, here's the link.

Practicing Quoting

Using another person's idea within your own writing requires a proper citation so that person can receive the credit they deserve. This blog post includes a screenshot of a paragraph where I introduce two quotes with differing claims in a proper format.

Wieder, Tobin "Screenshot for 'Practicing Quoting' Blog Post" 9/19/2015 via GoogleDocs.

The following key explains the meaning of each color highlighted:

Signal phrases

Establishing authority

Putting source in effective context

Ellipses and brackets

QRGs: the Genre

Stefan "The droids we're googling for" 7/23/2009 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

Writing in a specific genre requires an understanding of this genre's conventions so that the work can best match its intent. In this blog post I will analyze the conventions of the Quick Reference Guide through responses to specific questions.

What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?

The convention that stood out to me the most was its similarity to a blog post. Although the articles are longer than blogs, there is a lot of white space so ideas can be organized and readable. Graphics and images are prevalent as well. Another main convention is the use of headings in different fonts to separate ideas and guide the reader. Hyperlinks are also frequent throughout the articles.

How are those conventions defined by the author's formatting and design choices?

The subject of the article guides how the author uses these conventions in their design. Articles about a specific event included more quotes, images, and texts with different font, where articles with a more professional topic provided more charts and hyperlinks to display and cite the information given. All authors of QRGs leave blank space through the frequent use of paragraphs so that the article is more visually appealing and readable.

What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

Quick Reference Guides seem to be a way for a reader to understand the what is going on with respect to a certain topic. QRGs are organized so anyone can browse the article and learn about the subject or find an answer to a question they might already have, easily.

Who is the intended audience for these QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How and why?

The intended audience of a QRG is anyone who wants to learn about a certain topic. They target anyone who comes across the article and finds the information interesting and worth reading about, so no prior knowledge is required to understand its content. All QRGs address different topics so its audience will vary based on who is interested in the subject and what they want to learn about.

How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?

QRGs about events usually use images to portray what the article is talking about in a different perspective than just words. QRGs with a more professional topic, whether it be the economy or scientific finding, tend to use graphics like charts and graphs to represent the data and information being discussed in the guide. Visuals are mostly used to make the text more interesting to read as they provide a new perspective on the information given in the article.


Reflection: After reading Ayra, Savannah, and Brandon's posts, I'm again reminded that this is a blog that I'm running and everything doesn't have to be in strictly paragraphs. Savannah and Brandon used lists which made the post much easier to read and left little room for questioning what they meant. I think I could have definitely been more concise in my answers so I plan on changing my formatting accordingly in the future.

Cluster of My Controversy

Controversies that exist on such a public scale have countless layers of arguments, supporters, and evidence that can be hard to organize. This blog post includes my attempt at making a cluster map of the fracking controversy using Coggle.

kurtxio. "Web" 12/24/2007 via Flickr. Attribution License.

Creating this cluster was difficult for me as I'm not very tech savvy, but Coggle made it pretty simple.

First, I separated the two sides of the argument where I then mentioned their major supporters and where/how they have promoted their ideals. The most important aspect of a controversy are both sides' main points, so I made branches for each argument and elaborated a bit so their meaning in the fracking debate is clear.


Reflection: After seeing Nick and Mika's cluster maps, I realized that I could have put more detail into the branches in my own cluster. Nick's map was different because it separated branches based on pieces of evidence and then connected it to the argument, so that mad me rethink how a mind map could be organized. Mika's map was made through Coggle like mine, however his also included quotes and elaborated pieces of evidence on each branch. I like that my cluster map was organized so I know what each branch is leading to, however I know now that I could have put a little more effort in elaborating on each main point so I could use it later in the final project of this research on fracking. I learned that mind mapping can be very useful in outlining an idea so more effort should be put into explanations on each branch so less work needs to be done when making the final writing product.

Annotated Bibliography in MLA Style

Bull3t Hughes "World Wide Web" 8/3/2007 via Flickr. Attribution License.

The following blog post includes an annotated bibliography for the six sources I've found in three of my previous blog posts that pertain to the controversy within my discipline which is the debate on fracking. Each source is cited in MLA format with a paragraph summary to go along with it.

Source I:

AmSciMag. "#WaterQuality Issues From #Fracking incl. Water Footprint + Water Contamination - Avner Vengosh: bit.ly/1WJN2DX." 29 Aug. 2015, 10:31 a.m. Tweet.

American Science Magazine tweeted this so they could inform their followers of a recent interview with fracking expert, Avner Vengosh, about the safety hazards that result from this process (mostly water-related). The tweet includes a link to the full interview where Vengosh discusses the environmental impact that fracking has while also touching on the EPA's role in the regulation on the process and what needs to be done to ensure its safety. This source provides a political and environmental platform for the opposition to fracking that I can use to show what the controversy is based on. 

Source II:

Fuller, Dawn. "UC Doctoral Student's Research Digs Deep into the Fracking Controversy." University of Cincinnati. University of Cincinnati, 4/11/2011. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

This article seeks to inform of the research that Deborah Kittner, a doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati, did on fracking. The article introduces the fracking process and the concerns that people have with its possible correlation with ground water contamination that makes it a controversy. The article also discusses the fracking industry's collaboration with the EPA to evaluate the system and make it environmentally safe. This article will be used to format how I first introduce the fracking controversy and the concerns with both sides.

Source III:

Jackson, Robert B., Avner Vengosh, J. William Carey, Richard J. Davies, Thomas H. Darrah, Francis O'sullivan, and Gabrielle Pétron. "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39.1 (2014): 327-62. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of this article is to lay out the environmental advantages and disadvantages of fracking. The article mentions the costs and benefits in cases of both safe and unsafe practices of the energy extraction process while discussing the regulations that need to be made to ensure its proper output and reduce environmental damages. A major point in the article is that fracking does output greenhouse gases and other toxins into the air, however a switch from oil to natural gas would reduce that output already. This article will be used as a foundation for the environmental aspect of the debate, so I can bring about concerns and potential benefits that come with fracking.


Source IV:

Maxwell-Gaines, Chris (waterthrift). "EPA Study: No evidence that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has led to widespread pollution of drinking water - http://ht.ly/Q6Kww." 19 Aug. 2015, 12:04 p.m. Tweet.

Maxwell-Gaines composed this tweet to inform and persuade his followers that fracking is safe in its effects on drinking water, revoking the claim by most anti-frackers that it does cause contamination. He uses the EPA's study as a means of securing his claim and supporting the use of fracking. The EPA study in the link provided in the tweet claims that there is no systematic contamination to the drinking water nearby fracking operations, however the study's reliability is still in question by several environmental organizations and remains to be published officially. This tweet and linked source will be used to show public view on the process and any given individual's willingness to site a source that supports their side of the debate, whether it be completely reliable or not.

Source V:

Morrison, Jessica. "Uneven State Rules And Trade Secrets Fuel Fracking Debate." Chemical and Engineering News. American Chemical Society, 16 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of the fracking industries' reluctance to reveal the chemical composition of the fluid used in their process and how this obscurity is fueling the debate over the process. The article mentions new state laws that are forcing the companies to reveal this information however they seem to find a way around them. The article discusses how the secrets being kept by the companies have made it harder for people to have faith in the process. This source will be used as a major example of what the fracking industry is doing to propel the controversy.

Source VI: 

Osborn, S. G., A. Vengosh, N. R. Warner, and R. B. Jackson. "Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108.20 (2011): 8172-176. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of this article is to convey the results of a study done by the authors on the methane contamination in wells near fracking operations. The researchers took samples from 68 drinking water aquifers in Pennsylvania and New York near natural gas extraction plants and tested them for their pH and chemical content. They found that there was a systematic increase in methane concentration as proximity to fracking sites increased. The article has no bias, as it is a scholarly research study, however it communicates fracking as being dangerous in its contamination of drinking water. This source will be used as an example for the anti-fracking position's main argument against the process.


Source VII:

Channel 4 News. "Fracking debate: 'How dare you lie on national TV?'" YouTube. YouTube, 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the video is to show two leaders in the debate over fracking in the UK and their argument for their side. Chris Lilley and Vanessa Vine go back and forth over the health/environmental impacts of fracking and no agreement is reached, however Lilley does bring about a strong argument on the economic benefits of the process. This video can definitely be used to portray the debate over fracking as exactly that: a debate.


Source VIII:

Coleman, Jesse. "Documents Reveal EPA's National Fracking Study Halted by Industry Pressure." HuffingtonPost.com. The Huffington Post, 5 Mar 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the article is to show the controversy and the progress, or lack there of, of coming to a resolution to the debate. It is meant to show the fracking industry's influence in government studies and how it is preventing a conclusion to the water safety aspect of the argument. Major findings of the article show industries' limiting and completely shutting down some studies by the EPA, showing their intentions in hiding results that could shut them down. This article will be used to show the little progress that this controversy is making and what is exactly propelling the debate.


Source IX:

Osterman, Cynthia. "Documentary 'Gasland' Pivotal to Anti-Fracking Movement: Study" nytimes.com. The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the article is to summarize studies done nationwide about the documentary, "Gasland", and its impact in mobilizing the anti-fracking movement across the US and other countries. The article says that posts and their amount of views were monitored before and after the release of the movie and determined that support increased dramatically for the side of the debate against fracking. This article will be used to show the means by which the controversy is being aggravated and how it has brought attention to the risks of fracking.


Source X:

Martin, Rachel. "Both Sides Claim Victory Over EPA Fracking Study." National Public Radio. National Public Radio, 7 Jun. 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the article is to provide a transcript to a discussion by NPR on the EPA's study on fracking's environmental effects and to what extent it has brought support to either side of the debate. The participants in the discussion talk about the study's results in finding that there is no widespread pollution in water as a result of fracking, yet it mentions there have been cases where this has happened. They discuss that the uncertainty and lack of depth in the results has failed to change minds for or against fracking. This article will be used to show the debate's improbability of coming to a conclusion any time soon unless more in depth research is done.


Reflection: First can I say that finding a citation style used that strayed from an MLA-like format was difficult because just about everyone is a science major. I read Jessica and Isabel's annotated bibliographies and the main thing I learned is that I can be more precise. Jessica also used MLA and her explanation of the purpose and context of the source was very well done. Isabel explained the findings of the source in a very detailed, yet concise manner. I think that shortening the annotations can make sifting through the sources much easier when I start citing them in my paper.

Ideology in My Controversy

Through research done and the sources found in my previous three blog posts, I will lay out the foundation of the controversy on fracking in this blog post with guidance from specific questions.

The Weekly Bull "No Fracking-London Protest" 1/26/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

Who is involved in the controversy?

There aren't any specific groups of people that make up either side to the debate. One side favors the use of hydraulic fracturing for its use in energy production and consumption where one side opposes fracking because of its alleged health risks to drinking water and other environmental factors.

Who are some of the major speakers/writers for each group?

Americans Against Fracking is the largest organization against hydraulic fracturing.Vivienne Westwood is also a very high profile anti-fracking spokesperson from the UK. 

Brooke Alexander, a former FOXNews correspondant, is a notable spokesperson and lobbyist for the use of fracking, but besides her, there aren't many public speakers for the system. Marcellus Shale Coalition, American Petroleum Institute, and several other gas/oil organizations are the biggest supporters due to their obvious investment in the use of fracking.

What kind of social/economic/political/cultural power does each side have?

Supporters of fracking tend to be mostly right-wing and are often tied to the organizations that profit from fracking such as the ones stated above. Anti-frackers are mostly either liberal or are locally affected by fracking and its dangerous effect on their water supply. 

Both sides of the argument have a great amount of support so any given person could favor either side. It depends on their ideology.

What resources are available to the different positions?

Both sides use research studies to support their side or counter their opposition. Pro-frackers use economic studies to show the benefits of fracking to the economy, as well as scientific studies to contradict the claims of environmental damage as a result. Those against fracking mostly use scientific research to show the unsafe water and alleged atmospheric decay that comes with the energy extraction process. With the exception of scholarly research journals, almost every source has bias because its intent is to support or counter the claims of one side.

What does each group value?

Those against fracking value the safety of the population that is affected locally by fracking where those that support fracking mostly value the economic benefits of the process and the advantages of using energy other than imported oil which causes damage to the atmosphere.

What counts as evidence for the different positions?

Both sides will mostly cite any "research study" from any organization to support their position, however most of these sources are biased. Anti-frackers who are close to fracking operations use their sinks with dirty water as a claim that the process indeed contaminates their drinking supply.

Is there a power differential between the groups?

The power can be associated with those in support of fracking because at the system is still being used, it can be concluded that their opposition's influence isn't strong enough to ban the process as of now.

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

Both sides can mostly agree that their is some correlation with unsafe practices of hydraulic fracturing that can cause some degree of contamination to drinking water. Another place of common ground is that both positions agree that the production of energy domestically is a great economic benefit, no matter which country they reside in.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

The obvious lack of common ground exists in the question of the extent to which the process of fracking contaminates the water supply and if the economic and other environmental benefits can outweigh it.

Do the various groups listen to each other?

The professionals involved in this controversy such as the scientists conducting research, are very open to communicate and collaborate so that they can find the effects of fracking and work to develop a system that is more safe. The average person or politician will stick to their side very forcefully and often not listen to their opposition due ti their strong commitment to whichever side of the debate they support.