Journal Entry 7

Jose Villafuerte
Comp 2000
Journal Entry 7


1. What is the writer trying to find out more about through their research?

Shes trying to find out how professional editors revise their work and how this can benefit researchers to better grasp the revision process



2. What is the research methodogly for this article?

The author filmed six professional editors at their prectice



3. How does professional editing differ from how students revise their work?

The major difference is that a professional editor is editing the work devised by another person , thus will not intervene in the writers idea and well just focus on nore than modify the particular style. A student is however revising his own work and will feel tempted to completely change ideas inside of focusing in just revising the paper

Journal Entry 6

Jose Villafuerte
Comp 2000
Journal Entry 6



1. What does Bitzer not mean by “rhetorical situation”? In other words, how does his view differ from past views the readers might compare to his?

His does not look for the actual events or circumstances but instead the nature of the context form which the speaker creates the rhetorical discourse.

2. What does Bitzer mean by “rhetorical situation”?

Bitzer when describingwhat is rhetorical situation is looking for the nature of the contexts in which the speaker creates a rhetorical discourse.

3. Explain what “exigence” is. Give your own example of an exigence someone could respond to in writing.

Exigence is defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done. Exigence someone could respond to in writing for example would be second hand smoke, because it encourages people to modify laws and statues in a positive way that goes against second hand smoke. Also it provides discourse, producing public awareness and such.

Journal Entry 5

Jose Villafuerte


In recent discussions of specialization, a controversial issue has been whether or not specialization is a problem. On the one hand, there are those who agree that specialization is a way to advance knowledge beyond a king of general application. On the other hand there are those who argue that specialization as had a number of consequences. In the words of David Easton the problem is a “Humpty Dumpty problem.” Many like Easton argue that in the world today specialization as caused there to be too many “pieces,” which is making it hard to understand. In sum while some say that specialization is good, others see it as a problem in today’s world. I would argue that both sides hold truths in their arguments and that the answer is a compromise between both. While I agree that specialization is good, I do believe that it has been stretched out to much. We should use specialization in moderation.

Journal Entry 3

What does Bartholomae mean when he says that students must “invent the university” when they write in college?

What Bartholomae means is that students should approach the university and a course by challenging it and by looking to it as an “insider.” Not standing back and just learning what the University teaches. The student should do additional research and testing in the subject matter so that when he leaves the University he will have gained full knowledge, which would be evident the mark he leaves on the university.


What does Bartholomae suggest is a way for students to become “insiders” within academic discourse?

Students can become “insiders” by allowing them to have scholarly projects that will allow them to act like professional of the field, instead of having the students just sit and admire what others have done


Summarize some of the differences between the two examples of student writing that Bartholomae examines, and Bartholomae’s opinion of these examples.

In the first writing the author simply states what he did and why he thought it was unique. The second writer however goes much deeper into why he thought he was creative and why he didn’t think he was being creative. He compares and contrast the two and at the end gives a well written generalization of what creativity is, something that among other things the first writer failed to do.

Bartholomae opinion of the first writer is that his piece was not elegant, seamless and to tidy. In the second writer, Bartholomae compliments the writing saying thae writer was consistently and dramatically concisions of herself. Stating that the style was difficult and highly qualified.

Workshop 1- expertise and interests

Expertise in:

• baseball/football
• sport video games
• Fraternities
• history before 1865
• will smith movies

Interested:

• getiing an A in Comp 2000
• Criminal Law
• Policing
  
• Criminal Justice
• Natural Science
• History
  

Journal 2

Jose Villafuerte

Journal Entry 2

Claim: Steroids should be allowed in sports.

Data: It will produce fairness through a level playing field and will
be more regulated if they are legal, and safer to athletes.

Warrant: prohibiting steroids causes a unfair lopsided competitive
field, and the random testing of steroids causes unsafe use by athletes.

Grounds/Backing: Prohibiting the use of steroids causes those who use
the substance to have an advantage over those who don’t for fear of
being caught, however on the other hand legalizing it will allow a
competitive edge to be maintained legally. If the steroids did become
legal and had some kind of regulated testing and education those who
exercise the use of steroids will be better educated about what it
does to there body, thus safer.

Qualifiers: If you legalize steroids in sports you probably will see a
more level playing field and safer to the athlete by regulation.


Rebuttal: Unless the athletes, who do not take steroids now, still
deny taking steroids after it’s legalize which still leaves a lopsided
playing field. The regulation will improve the safety of use by the
athletes expect those who don’t take it on a regular bases.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/usa_today_editorial/index.html?loc=interstitialskip

Journal Entry 1

Journal entry 1

Why Steroids should be allowed?

In this augmentable piece the author Mike Thomas claims that steroids should be allowed in sports. This piece as a whole is a policy claim that steroids should be allowed under the policy of the specific sport league. However within his policy claim, he also uses claims of facts and values to support his view. Thomas states it as a fact that many older players admit if they had the opportunity, during there playing years they would have in fact taking steroids to gain an edge. This is used to disclaim the belief that the records put up by steroid using players diminish what the older “natural” players did. He also uses value claims in his last two points saying that using steroids is not cheating and if made legal the drug would create a level playing field because those afraid to take it due to fear of being caught will no longer have that fear and would use the drug. Also saying that it is not up to the public to decide what the athletics can or cannot do to their bodies because it’s their bodies. Within the factual and value claims are the appeals of logic, emotion and ethical. Thomas appeals to the logic of the idea of making the playing field level by allowing everyone to use steroids. He also appeals to your emotion by stating that it’s a fact that the older “natural” players would have used steroids, giving you an emotion that they weren’t as clean as you subsumed. Also at the very end appeals to your ethics by trying to convince you to agree that it’s the players body and they can do whatever they want.