Reading Responses 

Frank Cioffi’s Prewriting and the Writing Process explores the stages of writing, beginning with how to choose the topic for an essay. The process can involve reflecting on emotions after reading a source, comparing texts, or examining other reviews on the topic to spark ideas. Additionally, focusing on side characters could lead to new viewpoints. Once a topic is decided Cioffi says to free write, which forces one to continue writing about the topic even if nothing is coming to mind, to create original thought. After freewriting, an outline can be developed to establish the direction for the essay. Drafting based on the outline helps connect all points together and while some writers can organize their argument mentally, an outline helps for those who cannot. Eventually rewriting takes place, with the goal to deeply analyze the organization and flow of the essay to rephrase sentences or add additional details. Lastly, one can ask for peer review. It is important to take into account all suggestions, but some edits won't be useful. In the end, even once the paper is turned in or posted to the world, there will always be something to fix, and no essay is ever truly perfect.

One point that stuck out to me was how great ideas could emerge unexpectedly. I liked how the process to formulate an idea was explained heavily and how he emphasized finding distinct perspectives or opinions on a text or source. I always take a long time to start an essay, and I sometimes get frustrated when my ideas do not flow together, and I have to stop. I think I should try freewriting and just pour all my ideas out on the page. I would also like to examine the feelings I have about readings and explore those thoughts more. I deeply resonated with how the writing process is never truly perfect or done. Time constraints force me to not rework sentences and paragraphs, but allotting extra time would help me catch mistakes and to discover new points to further elaborate on.

This reading addresses strategies a writer can employ to support their opinion in various situations. The classical argument started by Aristotle is used when an individual feels their opinion is superior. In the classical argument, persuasive methods such as ethos, pathos, and logos are used by the author to enthusiastically back up their perspective and discredit other views. The individual steps are introducing the issue, presenting the case, addressing the opposition, providing proof, and presenting the conclusion. Next, the Rogerian argument by Carl Rogers finds common ground between two sides for controversial issues and difficult audiences. The general steps are to introduce the problem, acknowledge the other side, present your side without discrediting the other, then to bring the two sides together, and in the conclusion go over how finding common ground is beneficial for both sides. Lastly, the Toulmin argument by Stephen Toulmin is used when there is no correct perspective or solution to a problem. Instead, the author wants to convince an audience to believe their claim or solution about the topic. There are six main components for this argument: the claim, the grounds, the warrant, the backing, the qualifier, and the rebuttal. This argument focuses on extensive evidence and supporting points to try and convince the audience that the author's claim is correct. 

When organizing an argumentative essay, there are many different avenues an author can take depending on the information and circumstances. It can be difficult to find the best method to persuade an audience to believe in a claim or perspective. I think the classical method is useful in debates where only one viewpoint can be supported or in straightforward essays. However, I think the Toulmin argument style organizes information in a more comprehensive way and is more useful for educational and complicated topics. Furthermore, I think the Rogerian argument would appeal to the most people because it is subtle, and people are more likely to compromise rather than commit fully to one extreme on controversial topics after hearing about both sides. Overall, any of these styles will add depth to an argument and help writers properly organize an essay.

Genre is not only a category that directs readers, but also a flexible tool that authors can use to guide their writing and communicate a desired message. For example, genres like creative writing and academic writing target different audiences, which influences tone, word choice, and context. While genre categories help establish expectations for a text, it is wrong to not consider other complex factors that are in the book. Genre is fluid, allowing authors to follow a set structure or to redefine what a book in that genre is written like, creating new exciting concepts. Due to this freedom, books can fall into multiple genres based on what factors are categorizing them, such as context, recurring themes, analytical guidelines, or even the author's writing style. Defining genre is difficult because critics and readers can interpret texts differently and decide that a book does not particularly fit a genre, even if it was the author's intent. 

In the past, I viewed different genres as strict categories, each with a set of rules a text had to fit to belong in any respective group. I like how the reading expands on what genre actually is and mentions how it is helpful to determine word choice, themes, context, and flow is necessary to reach a specific group. However, it makes sense that interpretations can vary and now I understand why multiple categories can be assigned to a specific text. I agree with the reading when it states that specific details can be lost if texts are too generalized and put into rigid boxes. I think that freedom in writing is important and that society and the author’s ability to change writing methods and expectations is vital to keeping writing creative and reading enjoyable. 

The text centers on legalizing the sale of organs, particularly kidneys, since many people spend years on waitlists for transplants and because dialysis is not a truly effective solution for kidney failure. Furthermore, on the black market, illegal organ trade already occurs, and people risk fines and felonies for a chance of survival. These organs are highly sought after since they come from a living donor, which can last a lifetime instead of an average of ten years from a dead donor. However, the illegal organ trade exploits those in poverty who need this money to live, while the wealthy take cuts out of the total sale and are the main beneficiaries. The author argues that if governments decided to regulate organ sales instead of prohibiting them, then there would be more incentive for donations, and exploitation of the vulnerable would decrease. The author also addresses the Pope’s viewpoint that selling organs violates a person's dignity and counters that it is not for one individual to impose their ideals on others. The author concludes that allowing people to die when there are both willing donors in need of the money and individuals in need of the kidney seems more immoral.

The author firmly supports the legalization of organ sales and does not seek middle ground but rather focuses on providing ample evidence to convince the reader. The text is organized in the classical style of argumentation, which I think worked well since she used lots of evidence and discredited opposing views. Mentioning the black market was an effective strategy, as it expanded the discussion from organ donation to broader concerns for the safety and best interests of people in poverty who are already selling their organs. I agree with the author’s argument that since organ exploitation is already happening, regulated sales would help keep people safe. Additionally, with the long and unreliable transplant waiting list, I think there is a strong case for allowing individuals who are willing to donate and those in need of transplants to have more options. People should have the right to make their own decisions. All in all, I agree with the author and believe that the government should consider the potential benefits of legalizing organ sales to save more lives and help people improve their financial situations.

In the TED Talk, "How to Ask Good Questions," David Stork argues that questions are more important than answers. For example, Einstein's questions about the speed of light rather than answers led to the discovery of special relativity. Additionally, a Bell Labs study found engineers and scientists excelling because they frequently met with a man (Nyquist) who asked thought-provoking questions. Stork also explains the demand for creativity in the workforce and the gap in employees who rank question-asking and creativity as one of their cognitive skills. This is due to education systems teaching kids to provide answers to problems but rarely teaching them how to ask questions. Yet, the most impactful solutions often come from reformulating the problem itself. For instance, in Sudoku, by asking questions about the puzzle as a whole (like how many final configurations it has) instead of just focusing on solving it, new discoveries about the puzzle are revealed. Stork then gave criteria for “Good Questions” and listed that they should have extremes, be solvable, lead to new questions, be unambiguous, and not be trivial. One way to brainstorm lots of these questions is to try to look at the issue through multiple disciplinary hats and find new angles. Lastly, Stork ended by listing different techniques for asking questions, like clarification and leading questions. 

In school, I tend to focus on finding the correct answer as fast as possible and not challenging the problem itself. In my opinion, the emphasis on efficiency in school does not allow a lot of room for curiosity. Stork's insistence on inquiry-based learning led me to think about how this type of learning would lead to a stronger understanding of the material. The Sudoku analogy highlights how even simple problems can be looked at a million different ways and possess a lot of information. I want to focus more on understanding all angles of a problem and take the time to formulate questions. I have never tried this approach, but I believe it will help me fully comprehend difficult material and to find things I am interested in.

This video explains what makes a source credible, why it's important, and how to identify the best sources. A credible source provides accurate information and supports arguments or research. Using credible sources enhances reliability as a writer and assures the audience that your information is trustworthy and quality material. Factors that contribute to a source's credibility include the author's expertise, potential bias, publication date, and the publication's reputation and editorial process. For example, reputable publications often proofread content, and peer-reviewed essays are considered more reliable due to expert evaluations. An author’s expertise is also vital since an educated or experienced author offers more reliable information than an anonymous or biased writer on a topic. Outdated sources should be avoided, as the most accurate information or best practice in all fields is subject to change with new advancements or events. Finally, the video suggests that students should not only check for the credibility of a source but also choose the best sources for their topic, whether it's an academic journal, scientific paper, blog, or an online article.

Understanding what makes a source credible is essential since research, essays, and learning all require accurate, unbiased, and high-quality information. In this class, knowing how to choose sources ensures our work is accurate and persuasive because good sources help assure the audience that our arguments are well-rounded and logical. By considering factors like author expertise, bias, and publication quality, I want to strengthen my research and arguments. For my topic, I will use scientific papers and online articles because I will easily be able to find authors who are experts in their fields and current publications. I also want to have case studies on specific animals to showcase real events, not just generalized consequences. By using credible sources that support each of my points, I want to establish ethos and logos, presenting the information ethically, logically, and knowledgeably. This approach will help persuade readers to share my viewpoint that zoos are harmful to animals and should transition to sanctuaries and conservation efforts while maintaining the Rogerian style of argumentation. 

This video focuses on the difference between summarizing and synthesizing information. Summarizing involves restating and listing details from a body of work without adding new or original ideas. It’s essentially a regurgitation of the information. In contrast, synthesis goes beyond merely repeating information; it integrates details from multiple sources to create unique ideas. An inference is a way of processing information to determine the main ideas and extract key takeaways from a body of work. Synthesis is a form of inference that specifically involves drawing connections across multiple sources to develop a new point. To synthesize, one must first summarize the information to fully understand the author’s arguments and then use that understanding to generate new thoughts that go beyond a single text. This summarizing step is crucial for synthesis, as it allows for effective integration of ideas from different texts. 

The difference between simple summarizing and synthesizing is important because it determines what qualifies as true evaluation and generation of new ideas. One must be able to combine information and insights from multiple sources to craft an overarching message from research. This skill is especially important in this class, where we pull information from multiple sources. We must not only organize these points coherently but also identify the broader message across our research and formulate a unique perspective that strengthens our arguments. Before watching this video, I did not fully understand the difference between summarizing and synthesizing, but now I plan to focus on integrating inferences from texts to develop engaging ideas that go beyond the content I read.

Figures and Fallacies, or Being Forceful but Not Cheating at Argument, by Frank L. Cioffi, notes the importance of avoiding fallacies and striking a balance between solid logic and figures of speech when writing. Figures of speech are useful in persuading readers toward your side because they shape sentences into their most appealing and engaging forms. Some common figures of speech include alliteration, metaphors, oxymorons, hyperbole, and climax. All of these strategies utilize patterns or create powerful parallels that give the reader new ways of visualizing the text. However, figures of speech need to be used carefully, or else the reader will not understand the logic behind the argument. Another way to weaken one’s argument is through logical fallacies because they distract readers and cheat arguments. Logical fallacies are based on defective logic and wrong information. Some common fallacies include ad hominem, ad populum, and red herring. These methods involve manipulating the audience through hate of a person, arguing the “popular” side, or using so much fluff and distracting information the reader does not understand the argument. These fallacies should be avoided because they rely on tricks and spread false information.

The biggest take away from this text is how it is crucial to present arguments in a clear manner while also keeping the audience engaged. Therefore, I really want to practice effectively using figures of speech in everyday writing to find the most engaging forms of sentences. I agree with the author that writing should not be flat or all in one tone because this can make the work boring and kill the argument. Furthermore, based on the author's example with a text about malpractice, writing needs to have a balance of clear logic and figures of speech or there will be weaknesses in versions prioritizing only one aspect. One version with only logic is dull and the other version with only figures of speech is not coherent. I have noticed the use of fallacies before in articles especially related to pop culture and politics and I agree that one has to be careful using them because they hold no true weight and are not strong arguments. They are also not convincing to anyone who is deeply engaged with the material or those who did not already agree with whatever stance is argued.

This video dives into the steps for filming an engaging documentary. First, one must brainstorm a subject. The person or topic does not need to be famous but there needs to be enough excitement to drive the story. Next, exploring various filming styles on YouTube, Vimeo, and watching short films is important for inspiration to help create new unique ideas. A clear story structure with a beginning, middle, and end should also be planned so that the story flows and has order. For instance, introduce the subject then investigate background, achievements, and future goals. Filming techniques are another important aspect of documentaries. A-roll is the main footage of the subject. It is important to remember that the camera will not directly face the subject and adjustment of the lens to control the visibility of their face is usually necessary. Other components include proper lighting which adds depth to the scene and B-roll footage which captures various angles to keep the video visually interesting. Good audio is also essential for audience engagement, so using backup microphones and ensuring clear speech is necessary. Music can also enhance the viewing experience. Making sure the subject is comfortable and letting them redo responses and repeat questions also helps capture the real story. Editing is the final step, and it involves mixing B-roll footage with A-roll footage to cover cuts and to transition into different segments of the story. 

The entire process to make a documentary involves careful planning, capturing diverse footage, and editing. Reflecting on this process, I realize how crucial attention to detail is when capturing a story. It is not just about getting someone to answer questions; it is about building context and carefully filming footage to create an authentic narrative. Gathering as much footage as possible and using the time available to reshoot shots that do not work is helpful to capture the best version of the project. What most stood out to me is the importance of building rapport with the subject to create a genuine response that makes the documentary resonate. I think that is a really important step and allows the audience to connect with the subject better. I also like how the importance of lighting and audio was brought up because the smallest details can make a huge difference in how the story lands emotionally and is experienced. 

The tutorial on how to use Canva to edit videos by Primal Video explains all the tools offered by Canva and effectively demonstrates how to edit a video using the platform. First you have to import the video, then trim and cut the clips in breaks in the video that make sense. The video advises adjusting the beginning and end clips and focusing on clean and smooth transitions. Next, you can add b-roll footage by importing additional footage and trimming it into segments that make sense. On Canva there is also the option to customize titles, subtitles, and headings to emphasize key words, statistics, or facts. There are tools to add animations, special effects, and speed adjustments to the video to keep it engaging as well. Audio can be added to the video from Canvas's own library, or the option to upload individualized or personal audio is offered too. Color correction is another thing to consider when editing a video to adjust the brightness, contrast, and warmth of clips; filters and templates can also be added for special transitions or effects. For example, there were black and white or vintage options. Furthermore, there are AI features on Canva that can noticeably enhance the video. For instance, there are tools like BeatSync which sync video clips with music seamlessly and Background Remover, to remove any objects, people, or backgrounds from footage. Both of these tools help make the video look cleaner and more professional. Lastly, the video shows how to save your videos as an MP4 after editing so it can be exported. 

Overall, Canva seems like a wonderful resource to address all the needs of an engaging video. There are plenty of filters, transitions, audios, and animations to really add appeal to the footage. Additionally, the editing tools seem simple to use and work to make clean transitions between footage, especially with B-roll, which will be useful in my argumentative video to switch between baking, interviews of the competitors, the judging, and overhead shots of the brownies. I really want to try the audio offered by Canva to see if I can find any upbeat songs to make the baking competition for the best brownie dramatic. Overall, the Canva video demonstrated all the tools they offer to make editing a video simple and effective, and I'm excited to start working on my video footage.